< July 08	July 10 >

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 22:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being Funny in a Foreign Language[edit]

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

For an unreleased album to be notable, per WP:CRYSTALBALL, it should be notable even if it is not released. (This is because albums are regularly delayed/cancelled, so are not "almost certain to take place".)

The existence of a minimal amount of routine information is not suited to a standalone article, but to incorporation in the existing article on the band—or, in the article "Part of the Band", which is notable due to a significant number of in-depth reviews and analyses. Mostly unsourced speculation about the album details, such as claimed track lengths, and a track listing that has been published by the band but will be subject to change, are not solid grounds for an article.

The current sourcing is: two primary sources (YouTube videos); three routine NME sources giving the very little publicly available information about the album; two sources where notability is conferred on "Part of the Band" but not inherited to the album.

Attempts to redirect have been quashed through edit warring by a recreating user that has not engaged in discussion yet. — Bilorv (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. — Bilorv (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this a notable topic, but likely instead needs REFIMPROVE. Rylesbourne (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rylesbourne: which sources exist that contribute to notability and are not in the article? — Bilorv (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable topic by a notable artist. @Rylesbourne: agreed, the article needs more diverse sourcing material. There is enough outside of NME waiting to be incorporated, e.g. on DIY, Uproxx, Variety, Line of Best Fit, Music Feeds and more. Also, the article will develop with time as more gets revealed and released. Lk95 (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the article will not be notable, but it is not notable today. There is nothing to incorporate from each of those sources as the little speculative detail that has been announced is already in the article. — Bilorv (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not a fan of articles for future albums that people create as soon as said albums are announced, because patience is a virtue. But this album is for real, and the article is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL violation because the album's release date and track list have been confirmed, and the upcoming release is getting reliable media coverage because of the band's popularity. (Especially the NME article, and here are some more: [1], [2], [3], [4].) Since this article is here, regardless of maybe being a bit too early, deleting it serves little purpose except creating more work for Admins, because someone will re-create it and then it will have to be re-deleted again and again until the release date in October. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, nobody (including me, forgetfully) has yet mentioned the WP:FUTUREALBUM guideline, which allows for reliable sources that confirm the release date and other essential info about the album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer to WP:FUTUREALBUM, which I'm sure I thought about but somehow overlooked. It says: In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it ... generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label. The title, track listing and release date have been given. — Bilorv (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by LK95 and Doomsdayer. They provide enough significant coverage to meet the GNG. There's no CRYSTAL issues remaining. Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above Kazanstyle (talk) 11:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep especially because new UK Rolling Stone cover provides more information about the article, which should help expand the article beyond a stub. Red 05 (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe the album is legit. Everything related to the album has been confirmed and I believe it has gained attention. Not to mention, it is from a very well known band. I will say this, deleting this will serve no purpose and it does mean requiring more work and re-creating it from scratch. I suggested keeping it and as usual, expanding it along the way. 20chances (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please look up this. -The Gnome (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer Can you explain the reason for your vote? SBKSPP (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Release date, track listing, etc, that's enough for me, plus the page would just be recreated again in the very near future if deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:FUTUREALBUM with sources presented above. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next Radio 106.1 FM Uganda[edit]

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

This article about a Ugandan radio station has been created by a COI editor and in my eyes does not meet the WP:GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Uganda. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the admirable efforts by an editor obviously tainted with a conflict of interest, the sources appear to be numerous but quality-wise they are vaporous. We have advertorials such as this (sample prose: "top-notch radio content"), this ("are they going to Poach everything good?"), and this ("much anticipated"); some are even explicitly helpful in the company's relaunch after closing, e.g. here ("suspended all normal programming to realign in light of new industry realities and the need to remain competitive"); corporate announcements in other websites, such as this or in the company's own, as in here; then admissions that the subject is actually not that notable ("failed to make it among the top radio stations in the country") and a few deceased links such as this. The generous assessment would be "it may be too soon", submitted along with a wish to make it in the future. -The Gnome (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Noah S. Sweat#The "whiskey speech". czar 22:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If-by-whiskey[edit]

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

I believe this is adequately covered in the section in the original speaker's article, Noah S. Sweat. While the term has been covered in various secondary sources, it has never been done so in a context that is separate from the speaker or the speech in question. I think it falls afoul of WP:INHERITED. I'd propose a merge, but I think the topic is adequately covered in the parent article already. BrigadierG (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Noah S. Sweat. Though if there was more information to be added to this page in terms of its broader user of the same sort of logical fallacy, I could be in favor of keeping the page. BA Schuetze (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the relevant section of Noah S. Sweat. That article already contains the text under scrutiny, whose subject, as it happens, cannot claim independent notability of much significance. -The Gnome (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Alcantara[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. WP:NFOOTY no longer exists to presume notability. I'm not certain the cited sources are reliable and the ones provided are mostly mere mentions to verify she's on the team but not enough WP:SIGCOV. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Philippines. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Gdańsk[edit]

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

Does not qualify for a WP:SPLIT; the imag being on Gdańsk is enough, surely. – Meena • 18:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep/merge The German and French articles both have essentially the same text which fleshes out the history of the banner. My reading of both these articles is that they rather go on about what really ought to be a short section in the Gdansk article, but either way this is obviously not a candidate for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's a lot of available info on the flag that can improve the article and get it to be separate enough from Gdańsk. Combining info from different languages and independently-found reliable sources can bring this to at least some decency. Luxtay the IInd (^{talketh to me}) 18:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I have added information and will continue to do so. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 03:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very easily passes WP:GNG and there's certainly enough content there that it doesn't warrant being merged into Gdańsk itself. The version at the time it was nominated for deletion is a far cry from what it is now, and a good example of the fact that sometimes articles can and should be improved rather than deleted, if that is at all an option. PCN02WPS did a wonderful job with working on and expanding/improving the article. - Aoidh (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - considering that this was the country-level flag for a period, I'd say it's an easy pass. --Soman (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Wallace (wine writer)[edit]

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

I've done a source assessment on the article talk and am just not seeing notability outside of local coverage and some industry publications. Appears to have been created by an SPA and has recently been edited by likely UPE. valereee (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Pennsylvania. valereee (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He's written a book or two and seems to be an expert in several interviews. [5] a brief NPR piece, he's been a writer for years. [6] The Daily Beast, not the best source, but it seems reasonable. [7] Philly Mag, about him getting married but it's broad enough seem to pass as a reliable source. Courrier Post article about the Philadelphia Wine School he's founded [8]. An AP article about him (partly) https://apnews.com/article/health-coronavirus-pandemic-technology-lifestyle-business-f6e0047d058b115e48f7a3b63ec94544]. At least meets GNG. He's done brief expert interview pieces in Reader's Digest. He seems to have enough traction. Oaktree b (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Beast articles are by him, not about him. The NPR is an interview. There's a source assessment at article talk. valereee (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know, they seem to support GNG, he's quite well known in the world in which he writes. Actually the Daily Beast article I had cited is by Tara Nurin, talking about the fellow. I think it's acceptable. Ignore the sources in the article, look at the links I posted, 2 or three which I think are reliable/not written by him. The rest helps to prove GNG, that's he's been known in the wine world since at least 2009 (the date? (unsure off the top of my head) of the NPR thing I listed). here's rating some wines, as an expert for a magazine in an article written by another person. [9] Oaktree b (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One book review here in Publisher's weekly [10] and another here [11]. Might just pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two book reviews, about a dozen consultations as an expert going back to 2009, he founded the Wine Academy thing in Philadelphia, this is at least GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a WaPo article about him, as a science of wine/MythBusters type thing [12]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From the evidence presented by Oaktree, I think there are enough independent reviews to pass WP:NAUTHOR.4meter4 (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. I reviewed the assessment on the article's talk page and the sources in the article as well as the sources mentioned above. Aside from the one piece in the Philadelphia City Paper there's nothing to go on. That's one article, and WP:GNG requires several reliable sources; one doesn't cut it. There are a couple of routine book reviews that are really the only other claim to reliable sourcing, and those are about a given book, not about the author. The amount of information about the author is borderline trivial for each one. Then there's this mentioned above which is absolutely a trivial mention. So the article's subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. As for WP:NAUTHOR, yes he's written a book and written articles and contributed to publications, but none of them are "a significant or well-known work" as required. Yes, the book does have reviews, but a book being reviewed does not make it significant, nor does it make it well-known. - Aoidh (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 22:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic church (Mariupol)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced to just one website. Fails to establish notability and some of the claims, such as when the church was destroyed, are not found in the offered sources. The claims may well be true, but we need to be able to verify them. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failed GNG. Also, some of the facts in the article seem to be confused with one of the more notable Eastern parishes destroyed in the Soviet period. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a brand new article. From the 1900 photo (which appears to be from a book), i would expect the church to be notable, ie that plenty will have been written about it. But how to search for coverage, because what was it actually called, in what languages? Eg the term "church of the Italians" may never have appeared, it may be a recent translation of an Italian language phrase used in Russian or Ukrainian. I don't imagine it was actually called "Roman Catholic church". No RC church would call itself that, it would likely be named for a saint and covered under that name. Also I see the article creator built it up, but then removed two photos (which do appear to show it as a prominent church) and a passage of text. I don't understand what's going on, would like to hear from the creator. I don't see interaction at their talk page, I only see they were given the abrupt AFD notice, and this is about a new article. Why not make contact first, or is there a lot of history here between editors, say? Also Is there more in any other language Wikipedia? -Doncram (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It was common for merchant communities in major ports to establish their own church, so that they could be ministered to in their own mother tongue. The article is thus credible, and may have been known locally as the Italian Church, though that would not be its formal name. However I would question whether it was notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do wish User:ColeB34 would participate in discussion here. FYI, i am not opposed to creation of articles about buildings in Mariupol or elsewhere that have been destroyed; it is well- understood in Wikipedia that "once notable, always notable". Also, the event of destruction of a church could be part of what makes the former church notable. This current event of book burning at an apparently surviving church in Mariupol makes it, the Church of Petro Mohyla or Petro Mohyla Church (named for Petro Mohyla), adds to its notability. I don't see that one in Category:Buildings and structures in Mariupol.--Doncram (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I, too, wish that User:ColeB34 would weigh in here. That user has made recent changes, so it is obvious that the article is not abandoned. Give it some time, or suggest another place to move/merge the information. Radzy0 (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All sources appear to be self-run blogs that provide unclear details regarding the nature of the parish. Besides failing the two reliable-source standard and WP:NOBLOGS, the article must be renamed if we retain this article. "Roman Catholic church" is far too vague and a common name of literally of hundreds of parishes. We should use the parish's actual name, as is the standard for articles like this one. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think sourcing is sufficient for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – At the time I patrolled this article, I needed to choose between draftifying and AfD. The poor sourcing pushed the decision towards deletion discussion. Had the article been in its current state, I may have opted for just tagging. There are still some problems with the sourcing but it's now to the stage where a reader may be able to evaluate the evidence and make their own decision. Except for the evidence trail for this discussion, the redirect left behind from the page move is - as mentioned above - from a not-very-useful title and should perhaps be considered for deletion after this discussion concludes. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A second relist upon requests for User:ColeB34 to participate in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found two additional book sources, added them to the article and cleaned it up. One of the books also refers to "T. Timoshevsky, Mariupol' i ego okrestnosti, Mariupol', 1882 pp. 141-151", which I don't have access to, but ten pages seems like a significant amount of info about the church.--Jahaza (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the additional book sources added to the article since nomination so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Noelle[edit]

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

aside from her role on True Blood, I don't see any evidence that even claims she's notable - and I don't think one role satisfies NACTOR. I'm not sure what kind of award is granted to someone for a single episode appearance either (re: awards and noms for New Girl) but there is no meaningful, in depth coverage of Noelle either. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I was just tagging the article for notability and dependence on primary sources. The role on True Blood was not significant enough to appear in the already enormous cast list provided in that article. It's possible there are some better sources out there and perhaps they will be presented in this discussion, but the sources given in the article are far from sufficient. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is some coverage for her child role in True Blood, but not all that much. She was a cute recurring minor character in seasons four, five, and six, appearing in some of the episodes in those seasons, a total of 19 according to a fan wiki. There's no significant coverage of her since. Pikavoom ^Talk 06:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when a person's closest to significant role does not get them in stanadard cast lists, we do not have meeting of our very broad inclusion guidelines for those involved in acting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azerisport.com[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Can't find any significant secondary coverage. BangJan1999 15:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Sports, Internet, Websites, and Azerbaijan. BangJan1999 15:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, even the az.wiki version was deemed not notable. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 22:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scorched Tanks[edit]

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

Scorched Tanks is an artillery game for Amiga based on Scorched Earth and preceding Worms. The coverage I found for the game on Google and Internet Archive was minimal, and the reviews were few and far between. I had a similar outcome for Pocket Tanks, which is basically the same thing but for modern operating systems and mobile devices. I do see lists of top games featuring Pocket Tanks, but they do not say why the game (or its Amiga counterpart) is notable. Now, the game may be notable enough to be merged into the Scorched Earth article if any of the material is to be kept. Free Media Kid$ 17:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Free Media Kid$ 17:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find WP:RS referring to it. This article does not seem notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Waxworker's discovered sources. Clearly passes GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was able to find many reviews of the game. Here's a review in Amazing Computer Magazine, The One (reviewed as part of a compilation), Amiga Concept, Amiga Game Zone, Amiga Magazin, Amiga Computing, GURU, and Amiga Power. Meets notability guidelines per sources found. Waxworker (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus to keep due to charting records per WP:BAND. Although provided source for charts cannot be searched online, other searches do seem to confirm existence of band and the charting records. TigerShark (talk) 03:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pangaea (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable band. The only thing that even comes up when you search "Pangaea band" is a different band from the US. It was already deleted before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pangaea_(band)) but apparantly recreated--- FMSky (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. FMSky (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple charting releases satisfies WP:BAND#2. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Three charting albums. Maybe best to google with Ely's name added. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 02:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anuradha Gupta[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a government bureaucrat, not reliably sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for government bureaucrats. There are no roles listed here that would pass WP:NPOL as "inherently" notable ones, so getting her into Wikipedia would depend on sourcing her over WP:GNG, but the footnotes here are directories and glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things, not GNG-worthy coverage about her. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and India. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deputy state commissioner sourced to routine announcements and government websites. Mccapra (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the creator of this article, I prefer to vote to keep as I believe it is notable as per Wikipedia:Notability of Local Government Officials which says, Individuals in charge of major government departments (transportation, police, education, fire, etc.) that oversee populations of 100,000 people or more are generally considered notable. The above subject is a government official who oversees a district which has a larger population of more than 300,000 people and it can be checked on Samba district article.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 01:58, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That essay explicitly says that a person is not "inherently" notable on those grounds, and has to be shown to pass WP:GNG on media coverage. Of which this article still cites none. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus which doesn't preclude a continued discussion about a possible merger. Star Mississippi 02:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great Mall of Las Vegas[edit]

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

Current sourcing is as follows:

Sources 1-3 are all rehashes of the same initial announcement
Source 4 is from 2011, announcing that someone else bought the land
Source 5 is 404 and does not appear to have been an RS anyway
Sources 5, 7, and 8 are about other retail properties, and only passingly mention that the mall was canceled

In short, there is no WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the mall's cancellation. Just one smattering of sources when it was first announced, and another smattering when it didn't. None of it was ever built, and only two stores were announced. Just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trillium Circle, literally all we can say is that it was never built and someone else owns the land. There is zero evidence in a WP:BEFORE of long-term sustained coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Nevada. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mall at Oyster Bay. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Triple Five Group. It's a mall that was announced but never completed. It's also already sufficiently covered in a paragraph on the Triple Five Group page. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many of article of proposed projects, such as casinos, in Las Vegas that were proposed but never built. I think this one should be kept too, especially since it was fully-confirmed to begin construction until it was cancelled. I found a source from 2019 about the site being used for new housing developments. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that List of Las Vegas casinos that never opened is useful. If there were a similar list for malls that never opened, or for projects that were canceled due to the 2008–2009 financial crisis and recession, the Great Mall of Las Vegas should definitely be included there. As a canceled project, it just doesn't merit its own standalone article (and arguably should not have had its own page to begin with). For now I've added the detail about the site having been approved for new housing development to the Triple Five Group page. I think the solution is just a simple redirect. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several sources have been added in the last week as to the proposal and ultimate fate of the land which would have contained it. Nate • (chatter) 23:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 18:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shanice Stevenson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Caribbean, and Barbados. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a few mentions in Barbadian match reports but no actual in-depth analysis that I could find Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. czar 18:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irancar[edit]

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

xwiki vanity spam, no evidence any of this is true wrt it's circulation and no coverage anywhere reliable. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 18:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Keohane[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and GNG. We cannot rely upon the routine coverage found from the works in which she was featured or, in this case, publishers of music who provide bios of artists. Even actual journalism like this is a mere mention of her and not significant coverage. My A7 was declined so I'm sending this to AfD rather than draft. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. 47 recordings, received well by Gramophone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with an assist from the WP Library, I expanded the article with a variety of reviews of her performances and her various recordings. With the addition of these sources, I think it is more clear per WP:MUSICBIO#1, she has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself and per #4 has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, and per #6, she is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. Beccaynr (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly meets our requirements. Also WP:HEY. /Julle (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't find it so clear. Even with recent sources added, we still have mere mentions like JSTOR. I'm not disputing that the subject sings for a living. There's no significant coverage. No one is writing about her. Among the problems Wikipedia has is how we've demeaned GNG to be having more than one source that says the person or thing exists. That's not to my mind "generally notable." Chris Troutman (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  But the sources are writing about her performances, recorded and live - the JSTOR reference is also about her and as compared to another singer; it includes "Maria Keohone is an ideal Handel singer, with a pure, beautifully controlled voice, excellent diction and a strong but not overdone sense of drama" and goes on to say "Marie Friederike Schoder suffers by comparison with Maria Keohane" with details as to why the author holds that opinion. She is the soprano, so the reviews of her performances do write about her, because she is reasonably prominent. I did not add announcements of performances or album releases; these are independent RS over time providing secondary coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A search in the Swedish media archive for "Maria Keohane" (not a common name in Sweden, the articles are about her) gives 2351 hits. I've added some biographic detail from a couple of them, one ("Sångfågel och hästvila", Södra Dalarnes Tidning) being a roughly 1000 words long profile of her life and career. /Julle (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above, seems to be notable, should be kept Kazanstyle (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Not seeing the immediate need for SALT as the article has not been repeatedly recreated (last deletion was six years ago). czar 18:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vidya Yeravdekar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think anything good has changed since the last AfD. I tried to search online but couldn't find anything that helps substantially. The subject doesn't meet GNG, and it doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC either. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 15:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and India. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 15:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Vaco98 (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Citation record not remotely enough for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NPROF, and not convinced meets WP:NAUTHOR either. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG Kazanstyle (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read the last afd, same logic still applies. KSAWikipedian (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deletefails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 14:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Brooks (basketball)[edit]

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

This page has no valid references and this person is showing this Wikipedia page of him and selling Wikipedia pages creation service on Fiverr and Upwork, I have Googled this name and found no evidence or news articles on him, I am amazed to see why this page is still live without any references. As per this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Basketball/Notability he lacks notability especially point 2-3-4. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 14:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC) (on behalf of IntelisMust who malformed this page)[reply]

Regardless of whether Brooks meets notability criteria for professional basketball players, the list of external links at the end are clearly intended to be sources. DS (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonflySixtyseven Link 4 is dead IntelisMust (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dead but on archive.org. I'll also point out that the notability guidelines are "any of", not "all of". Regardless of if he meets #2, #3, or #4... does he meet #1? (Maybe not, I haven't examined the sources.) DS (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Basketball/Notability is neither an Wikipedia policy or a guideline and has no saying on a notability of the subject. Per WP:NSPORT, all athletes must pass WP:GNG. While there are several source in the article, albeit not inline, but none of them is a WP:SIGCOV, only database links. I was unable to find any significant coverage on the subject online so as far as I can see, he fails the WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This Wikipedia should not be deleted. It’s Philip Austin Brooks who played professionally basketball overseas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1D51:21B0:4CEB:EDF2:9811:38E1 (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New AfD comments and !votes belong at the bottom, not the top. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03the above user is the same guy whose page is being nominated for AFD. IntelisMust (talk) 07:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject passes WP:SPORTBASIC. Franklin Darrk (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Franklin Darrk As you know WP:SPORTBASIC requires multiple WP:SIGCOV sources. There are none in the article and none have been listed here so I take it as you have found some more sources. Could you kindly share with us what you believe are the three best significant sources on the subject? Alvaldi (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Brooks in no way meets the current WP:NHOOPS criteria under SPORTBASIC. He wouldn't even have passed the older version that included having played in overseas leagues considered "Top-Tier". The only "coverage" added in from a non-RS and is an "editorial" that's really just a press release and written by Brooks himself. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @GPL93 and @Alvaldithe above user whose name is Franklin is the same person as philip brooks and they are hiring other people through upwork for this Wikipedia fix. The above user has added fake website information such as weebly, and personal website including tax website to this page which I have removed it, he is continuously spamming it kindly keep checking his activity. IntelisMust (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GPL93: and @Alvaldi:, can you please explain to user:IntelisMust that primary sources can be used in an article, though it doesn't prove notability. He doesn't prove a meaningful edit summary just vandalizing the page. I don't want to get into an edit war with him. Please have a look at the page's history Franklin Darrk (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Franklin Darrk you are using personal website as a reference links including tax website that has nothing to do with this page. Any admins and editors can check your edits, you are even adding those links which are dead and have nothing to do with the subject. How come weebly.com is news website? how US tax website has to do with this guy? you added Euro link website that article is deleted already, so be on point rather than adding useless information. You are doing COI as I can see here. I will report to the admins very soon. IntelisMust (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:NHOOPS, WP:SPORTSBASIC, or most importantly WP:GNG. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords°
Delete Not notable, fails all notability guidelines. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing the WP:SIGCOV that would be necessary for a BLP article. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient significant coverage by reliable sources to meet the criteria for inclusion. Fails WP:GNG and WP:N or any subset of the same. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. Gusfriend (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Greater Jakarta LRT. czar 18:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Greater Jakarta LRT collision[edit]

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

The incident is not notable enough to have a standalone article. The incident happened during trials. No passengers were present, there are no serious casualties, only 1 minor injury. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Indonesia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this really should have been a merge proposal to Greater Jakarta LRT rather than an AfD. NemesisAT (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Greater Jakarta LRT, where it's already covered. Mackensen (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Greater Jakarta LRT. As stated above by Mackensen, that article covets this topic. I noticed, however that are some differences between the two articles, which is why I believe that this article should be merged, rather then deleted. Mapmatics (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was histmerge. Next time can request this type of merge at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge, since there is no argument about the topic's notability. czar 18:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Room 203 (film)[edit]

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

Recently created article with significant portions copied from Draft:Room 203. This article should be deleted and the draft should be published to maintain edit history. BOVINEBOY2008 13:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Will it be possible to transfer the significant material in the current article to the prior draft? It would obviously be ideal to maintain the correct edit history. LainEverliving LainEverloving (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 18:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Penny sterling[edit]

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

Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an underdeveloped content fork of Penny (British decimal coin) and Penny (British pre-decimal coin). There is also an extensive series on the history of the penny, such as History of the British penny (1714–1901). A merge into these articles is a possible outcome, but there's really nothing to merge that isn't already there. Suggest deletion.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with note that no one refers to the penny as a penny sterling anyway, and in addition to the Wikipedia articles mentioned by Wehwalt above, we have Penny (English coin). We do not need four articles about English or British pennies (the concepts being very closely allied). We don't even need three. Frankly all could be combined into a single article, except that I've seen too many national currency arguments end up at ANI, so I really don't want to get involved. Elemimele (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Though I think the division into pre-decimal and decimal currencies perfectly sensible, three articles is certainly enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator and the arguments above, this is a needless article as its content can easily be covered by the other articles mentioned (and I think "penny sterling" is a somewhat unlikely search term due as it is not a commonly used term so I do not see any value in a redirect). Dunarc (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 18:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Ayrton[edit]

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

This footballer made 2 professional appearances in 1980 but lacks significant coverage to prove notability.

I added a couple of bits I found in my BEFORE search to the article, but I don't feel they're enough for him to warrant an article. In particular Where are They Now publish fan submissions, so I'm not sure if their info is reliable. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sports, Football, United Kingdom, and England. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need more substantive coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

María Agoncillo[edit]

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

Non-First Lady of the Philippines which lacks coverage that would make this article satisfy WP:GNG. WP:NOTINHERITED applies when it comes to being a former wife of a president Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shaykh Mahmudul Hasan[edit]

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

Prodded by Joe Roe, but de-PRODded without any reason given. Original reason for PROD was:

Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO or the WP:GNG. Sources are primary, non-independent and/or trivial passing mentions. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Islam, Bangladesh, and United Kingdom. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my PROD nom. – Joe (talk) 10:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ontor22: Since you removed the PROD from this, can you please elaborate on why you did so? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a PR piece containing rubbish links as sources. Doesn't meet GNG and I don't see any indication of subjective notability either. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 18:58, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete At first I created this page with weak evidence so I got the tag of nom and AfD. Then I developed it by more evidence and suitable reference. Also removed the rubbish links. (Dependent on review and discussion of administrator) Tfrz.04 1:33, 9 July 2022 (BST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the newly expanded article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reaffirming nomination to delete. Adding more sources and content hasn't improved this article. The sources are still failing to demonstrate notability, as they are still either not independent, or they are only passing mentions. The PR-ness of the article has been toned down, but he is still not a notable topic. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 03:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Request not to delete Only about him, there may not be such news. His special significance is in the notable news source. Just such news about him may be related to another language. However, he is present in all reference links. Maybe his profession are not mentioned and even if he is, he is significantly less. But does it not reveal notability? And I think all those news reveal his notability and profession. According to Wikipedia, it will be improved in the future, so it would be better not to delete it. Tfrz.04 9:53, 10 July 2022 (BST)
Delete as per nom. All refs are just no refs. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 05:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eugène de Barral, Count of Barral, 4th Marquess of Montferrat[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. More of less copied from the websites. No indication of notability. Seem to be the case that his wife that is notable in the family. scope_creep^Talk 11:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did his noble titles mean that he was a member of a state or national parliament? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Italy. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Eastmain: No, nobles of that type are created by Kings and/or Queens, always I couldn't find much on him at all. His wife is a different matter, she got the limelight. She was the lover of two very prominent nobles including a king and that gave her a lot power and prestige, hence the size of her article, which is unsourced but seems to be accurate. For this individual, the info has copied verbatim from an ancestry type site and its very poor. For modern individuals in this kind, then tend to get deleted as best you can say about them is that they are artistocrat, unless they have done something under their own steam. You see that quite often, its something like notable artist, they are usually kept.. Marquess is senior rank, 3 down in rank from a King, so there should be coverage of some kind, but I cant find much of this dude at all. Any three decent references, some archives possibly, would do it me and I can close this up. Hope that helps scope_creep^Talk 15:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Articles on nobles tend to be funky. Pre-Napoleonic nobility ranked count and above tend to generally be notable, as they had direct rule over their state; however, after that, there isn't really a clear consensus. Generally speaking, states became so centralized in this period that there has to at least be some modicum of WP:GNG (which should in theory be easier, due to the proliferation of media in this period). On this particular subject: it is likely his positions are honorary/genealogical ones (i.e. he held no power): the March of Montferrat ceased to exist in the 16th-century, and the county of Barral (Allevard) was sold in 1817. Curbon7 (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As far as i can tell, he was a NN individual who was ennobled for no clear reason. Perhaps redirect to his wife. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to that Marquis of Monferrat redirects to a list of rulers. This includes younger sons of the Savoy family who had the duchy as a title (probably without power). I assume this to be a French title, which is not even listed in that article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Montferrat is Italian, so that part is accurate. Curbon7 (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. ✗plicit 12:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arto Lahti[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Failed political candidate, so fails WP:NPOL. Attempts to determine WP:NPROF compatibility were muddled due to search results for an identically-named dermatologist CiphriusKane (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Finland. CiphriusKane (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - I was unaware of the previous AfD, so I apologise. Given the mention of sources in the previous AfD (which were never added to the article), I am unsure whether the coverage is sufficient but would rather leave it be CiphriusKane (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm not sure whether withdrawal was necessary. The last AfD was a bit inconclusive. It got side-tracked by the dermatologist, and in the end became a no-consensus keep simply because of the likelihood that there would be Finnish newspaper articles about him as a candidate in an election that he lost, expressed by one editor and endorsed by one other. I am not Finnish. We need someone here who can establish whether his candidacy has had lasting impact, or is relevant outside its time. If it has/is, then an article is possible. If he's only someone who didn't win an election, then we have a problem. Elemimele (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Here's some Finnish language coverage from Google, but I don't have the time to do a proper source analysis:
- Newspaper articles about bid for presidency: [14], [15], [16], [17]
- Newspaper articles about bid for parliament: [18], [19], [20]
- Press release -tier article about new job: [21]
- A rather short interview/bio: [22]

Overall, I'm not super thrilled about the level of coverage, but it's not non-existent nor is it strictly about a single event. Counting both the bids for presidency and parliament as a very broad and rather vaguely defined single event of "attempted to get into politics" doesn't really gel with me either. There's a certain je ne sais quoi that makes me want to not keep this, but I'm not sure what policy that !vote would be based on. As such, a very weak keep. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Tetteh[edit]

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

Chief executive of a Ghanaian town of 122,000. He has routine coverage but does not pass NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ghana. Mccapra (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have the level of sourcing we need for the leader of a local level community.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

University of Santo Tomas in popular culture[edit]

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

The same case as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johns Hopkins University in popular culture, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanford University in popular culture and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tulane University in popular culture. A mostly unreferenced collection of trivia aka list of works that mention University of Santo Tomas. Such a list fails WP:LISTN, and the article fails WP:GNG/WP:IPC. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, Education, and Philippines. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems to be mostly a List of fictional alumni of the University of Santo Tomas (ugh). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Trivial, minor, and pointless. What's the selection criteria even (I can't see this being followed Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources)? It's filled with OR, and this fails WP:LISTN. VickKiang (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is time to end indiscriminate fancruft articles on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is normal practice for these types of articles. Does not meet our referencing standards and fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:FANCRUFT. SBKSPP (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Femina Miss India 2022[edit]

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

I unwisely passed this at NPP though I removed slabs of unsourced text. The sourcing is rubbish and I don’t see anything better out there. My reason for passing it was that since we have a load of Miss Femina India articles there must be better sources somewhere but on reflection that seems dubious. It’s already been moved to draft and back, and the unsourced material has been restored, so we need to decide what to do with it. Mccapra (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and India. Mccapra (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Tagged CSD G7. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maat Means Land[edit]

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

Not enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources to pass NFILM. Most of the sources focus on the filmmaker Fox Maxy rather than this particular documentary. ––FormalDude talk 09:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. ––FormalDude talk 09:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found more reliable sources about the movie (The Criterion Channel and Screen Daily). Espngeek (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately neither of those two sources contain significant coverage. ––FormalDude talk 01:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have my permission to delete the article Espngeek (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Kitumaini[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. References are business ads for this BLP. scope_creep^Talk 09:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources all fail WP:BASIC. Not notable. ––FormalDude talk 09:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Rwanda. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In sufficient depth of coverage from the CNBC sources, others don't meet RS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Kazanstyle (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arival Bank[edit]

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

Brochure article. Native advertising. Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are press-releases, PR, annoucements. scope_creep^Talk 09:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Wikibusines spam. MER-C 09:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. All we have is funding rounds and what's going to happen, it's TOOSOON for this company to have an article, and the current article is written like an advertisement. The article creator has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts, and was likely an undisclosed paid editor. Jacona (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanine Nerissa Sothcott[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Bit-part actor roles only. scope_creep^Talk 08:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, falls short of WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. ✗plicit 12:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Racing Master[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPRODUCT and reads like an advertisement. ––FormalDude talk 08:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, and Products. ––FormalDude talk 09:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify This article is WP:TOOSOON to be in article space. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify/Delete, I concur with the above. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Per above. Timur9008 (talk) 20:24 , 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Draftify There's a questionable ref here (1), but I don't think it meets GNG, nor does all the refs provided. Agree that this is WP:TOOSOON, so I think draftifying is all right. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - per WP:TOOSOON. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honest Police[edit]

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

Falls short of meeting WP:GNG, coverage is limited to often un-bylined local news pieces interviewing the director. The International Media Arts Film Awards in Kampala, Uganda, where the film reportedly won awards, does not appear to be itself notable and thus doesn't do much to build the case for this film. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Australia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found this review from UK Film Review, but their editorial standards appear to be...dubious ("we invite anyone wanting to become a film critic to submit their best piece to us" and maybe we'll pay you £2, etc.) so it's probably not an RS. The only other sources are the sort of non-independent interviews that Rosguill describes above. Fails WP:NFILM and the GNG, as far as I can tell. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cavaliers–Celtics rivalry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY as a non-notable rivalry. Article was already deleted in 2018 and recreated in 2021. While the current version is a substantial improvement in terms of content, there is still no WP:SIGCOV establishing this series as a rivalry. A WP:BEFORE search on the topic via Google shows only a couple fan blogs and very little to satisfy GNG. In fact, there are other articles explicitly stating a rivalry does NOT exist between these two teams or the rivalry is between the Celtics and LeBron James rather than the Cavaliers.[23] [24] [25]. Frank Anchor 02:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball, Massachusetts, and Ohio. Frank Anchor 02:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. The biggest issue is that it fails the guideline WP:WHYN, namely that multiple sources are needed "so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". Otherwise, editors will just cherry-pick facts from routine coverage in recaps of individual games or series, as opposed to independent sources that look at the rivalry as a whole. Moreover, routine coverage liberally uses the term rivalry to manufacture hype.—Bagumba (talk) 10:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabbatino, Frank Anchor, Clarityfiend, and Dammit steve: Notifying you all for your input given your participation at the earlier Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cavaliers–Celtics rivalry. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry Frank Anchor as you were already the nominator here.—Bagumba (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In agreement with Bagumba. Lack of coverage of these teams as rivals. Teams meeting in several playoffs or being good at the same time does not make them rivals. Carson Wentz (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Diosdado Macapagal#Early life. WP:ATD-R. czar 21:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Purita Macapagal[edit]

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

Non-First Lady of the Philippines which lacks coverage that would make this article satisfy WP:GNG. WP:NOTINHERITED applies when it comes to being a former wife of a president. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Diosdado Macapagal#Early life as WP:NOTINHERITED. Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of regional flag proposals[edit]

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

Putting this here not really as a deletion discussion, but as a what-to-do-with-this discussion. It's been tagged as OR and for want of sources for a year now (I expect some synthesis stuff in there too), has a really vague inclusion criterion, and I don't really see a viable path to improvement short of splitting this into multiple lists with stricter inclusion criteria, which is basically WP:TNT. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 06:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was also considering tagging this article for deletion when I came across it but decided against it after knowing there was an article for national flag proposals. But now I'm thinking that maybe List of national flag proposals should be nominated for deletion too on the basis that anyone can propose a flag and that "well-documented" is very ambiguous term for describing something. I'm aware that dynamic lists exist, but this seems like an overly-dynamic list, in which some proposals are going to discovered and added while some may be removed on the basis that the proposal is not notable enough. Seems like a good article idea on paper, but in my opinion, there really isn't a proper way to execute it. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pizzataxi[edit]

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

Part of mass translation from fi-wiki. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, with minimal sourcing online or in the article. The first article source is affiliated. The second seems to be routine business news about an acquisition, and I've tried to access it and bypass the paywall without success. Several weeks ago, I also asked the article creator here if they had access, with no reply except for further article/stub creation. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Finland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article describing a mundane business, subsequently acquired by another firm operating in its area/sector. No evidence that it attained distinct notability; an WP:ATD could be a (brief) merge and redirect to Kotipizza, where this 2017 takeover is not mentioned but for which announcement-based coverage exists (e.g. [26]). AllyD (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There might be some coverage in older offline newspapers (online archives of Finnish stuff from the 90s are very limited), but we shouldn't keep on a sources might exist basis. Given how stubby this is, we won't lose much if we side on delete now and someone later chooses to recreate base on reliable sourcing they can find. -Ljleppan (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Rasool Rather[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Google Scholar returns five papers, only two of which seem to have been cited by others. These two have been cited 2 and 34 times, respectively; compare this to a random academic, Yangnam Gu, who has produced at least four times the output, averaging around 40 citations per paper. This person is not widely cited. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 07:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:PROF. Gusfriend (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Assistant professors are usually WP:TOOSOON for academic notability and the citation counts in his Google Scholar profile do not suggest an exception in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Koala[edit]

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

Article was previously moved to draft space due to lack of secondary reliable sources. However, the creator insists moving it back to the main space although it has a lot of unreliable sources such as download links and "10 things you didn't know about an artist" links, and the attached media (image) was probably took from Instagram without any proof of permission whatsoever. Neo the Twin (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Neo the Twin (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 21:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cinenacional.com[edit]

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

No indication of meeting GNG. In Google Books, there's trivial mentions here and there 1, 2, and it's often cited as a ref, see 1, but there isn't indicating of meeting GNG. VickKiang (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Argentina. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cinenacional is the most comprehensive site for information about the Argentine film industry and is mentioned or cited in a large number of reliable book sources. Databases such as this will of course always have more citations than articles writing extensively about it, the same with iMDB and other sites. The nominator clearly lacks understanding on what meets notability requirements here. Even the English DK Eyewitness Guides suggest using the website for Argentine movies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The citations are plenty but are IMO not enough to meet GNG, but are indicative of reliability. Which criteria do you think it meets GNG? If this is a company, it doesn’t have enough significant, coverages; is there a source for here: most comprehensive site for information about the Argentine film industry, is there sources for this? Please ping me on which criteria you think it meets GNG. THe DK Eyewitness is interesting, but why do you think it's more than a passing mention? Though, I probably agree that I'm not too familiar with this subject, but I would probably change my mind if more reliable refs are provided, but right now I still disagree a bit with the line The nominator clearly lacks understanding on what meets notability requirements here. Many thanks for your improvements to the article! VickKiang (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A scan through books shows many that discuss the database, mostly in Spanish. I did not find any lengthy description, but enough non-trivial discussion to demonstrate notability. Also, there are more than 500 pages in Wikipedia that cite it, which could be reason enough to keep its entry. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I still disagree. I think that notability requires significant coverage, if there’s no lengthy description, how is the coverage meeting notability? I am a bit confused with the wording, and looked at the refs you and Dr Blofeld inserted, they are certainly RS, but I couldn’t see descriptions longer than a paragraph. I also don’t see any policies that say a website should be kept based on WP citations? Many thanks for your help and improving the article! VickKiang (talk)

"Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail ... is more than a trivial mention." A large number of sources with brief but non-trivial coverage shows notability, as does a smaller number of sources with more extensive coverage. The number of inbound links indicates that it would be useful to our readers to have a description of the database even if it were technically not notable. Most of those links are citations of Cinenacional.com, and our readers may be curious about the source. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY after Blofeld's excellent work. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: mentioned in main media of Argentina Clarin, Pagina12 and LaNacion. In Particular La Nación mentions that the site is supported by the INCAA, a governmental institution. Mariano(t/c) 11:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. We're not rewarding socks with a seven day discussion when consensus is clear. Star Mississippi 03:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MAD Foundation (Australia)[edit]

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

Solely promotional. Fails WP:NORG and created by likely COI/sock. 0xDeadbeef 07:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. 0xDeadbeef 07:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"COI/sock" and "solely promotional"? I think you need to reasonably prove both of these pretty heavy claims. RGBLight (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RGBLight, If I was a good faith user with just above 100 mainspace edits, I am fairly confident I wouldn't know what "COI/sock" means. 0xDeadbeef 09:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's good to see that you're already making personal attacks at this point and not meaningfully engaging with the content itself. RGBLight (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note RGBLight is a CU-confirmed sock of D.C. at MAD Foundation Inc., a user with a declared COI with this organisation. Both accounts are now blocked. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article had been moved into draftspace by MrsSnoozyTurtle for incubation before being moved back by RGBLight, now blocked for sockpuppetry. Scrutiny-evasion notwithstanding, the body of the article does more to promote the subject (such as [t]hey fund medical equipment for disadvantaged children afflicted with disability and MAD features in Australian media through [...]) than to establish its notability. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTPROMO article by confirmed COI sockpuppet. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional and inadequate evidence of notability. Since they're willing to break the rules here, it makes me wonder whether they are willing to cheat donors too. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator, who had prior knowledge of WP:COI attempted to game the system by creating an undisclosed sockpuppet, instead of following the proper procedure by sending this to AFC. This is unacceptable at all costs. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 10:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kerala Premier League. ✗plicit 12:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Soccer Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The club has neither played in any of the national level football leagues nor any of the official cup competition in India. The Kerala Premier League (presently the 4th tier) is only a regional state league. The club has no significant coverage from the citations. Fails GNG Sullyboywiki (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and India. Sullyboywiki (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. Other option is a redirect to Kerala Premier League. The Footballean (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Kerala Premier League, not independently notable but possible search term. Giant Snowman 12:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kerala Premier League: May have a chance that people searching this subject. Onmyway22 talk 04:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iran international footballers born outside Iran[edit]

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

As with List of Bahrain international footballers born outside Bahrain (AfD), I fail to see how this list meets our inclusion criteria. Fails WP:LISTN due to lack of coverage on these individuals as a group or set and also violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Could be merged perhaps but I fail to see why this information is important as Wikipedia is not supposed to be an exhaustive collection of stats. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:SALAT: "Lists that are too specific are also a problem." Clarityfiend (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rianna Cyrus[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Caribbean, and Barbados. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shanelle Als[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Caribbean, and Barbados. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyanna Burnett-Griffith[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Caribbean, and Barbados. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olianna Bishop[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Caribbean, and Barbados. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tia Briggs-Thompson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Caribbean, and Barbados. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mariecamilla Ah Ki[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Only source is this [27], failing well short of meeting either criteria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see the Notability criteria for Association Football has been removed. At the time this entry was created, the notability criteria stated all full international players, male and female, were notable. Ah Ki is a full international for Samoa. Thus was notable under the criteria. That she plays for a low ranked nation should not deter any notability in the context of Samoa itself.

Ah Ki's entry should remain because she is a full international, and because she is a female player in a smaller country. Female athletes and those of smaller countries, especially Pacific nations are greatly underrepresented. Gmcker (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

O.C. Dawgs[edit]

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

A WP:BEFORE search doesn't turn up anything not already in the article, which would suggest the topic is not notable and does not meet WP:BAND. ––FormalDude talk 04:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Perhaps the reason why there is little new information added is because the one who created this page did a good job researching on the topic. And while it is questionable for the first criteria of WP:BAND, it does meet other criteria such as #2 (they were on Billboard Philippines Top 20), #8 (Wish Music Awards), #11 and #12.D-Flo27 (talk) 03:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current sources do not pass GNG. There also aren't any sources to verify your claim of them making the Billboard top 20, nor any radio sources suggesting they meet criteria #11 or #12. ––FormalDude talk 07:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just added sources of them on Billboard Top 20 in the article, so that takes care of #2. For #11 and #12, they were on the "Wish Bus" segment of Wish 107.5, which is the most popular segment of one of the more popular radio stations in the country, and that song must have been constantly replayed on their radio as well. Lastly, they are still making music, so as they become more popular like they were before, I think better sources will come.D-Flo27 (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the now-sourced charting claim. I note that one potential obstacle in finding coverage is that they appear to be inconsistently credited as "OC Dawgs" as well as "O.C. Dawgs". _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:MUSICBIO per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. with a request to stubbify this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni Pedrizzetti[edit]

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

I don’t think this subject passes WP:NPROF. Google scholar shows them mainly as the second or third author of many papers, lead author in twenty papers over the first ten pages of search: no notable awards or other distinctions either and does not appear to meet any of the 8 notability criteria for academics. Mccapra (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, Medicine, and Italy. Mccapra (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In most other fields his citation record [28] would be easily enough for WP:PROF#C1, even considering only first-author papers. But I'm not sure yet, because typical citation counts in medical imaging are so huge. @JoelleJay:, this might be a good test case for your methods of trying to normalize these counts for the discipline. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping! I'll work on it, might take some time since he has so many coauthors (Scopus doesn't export more than 150). Will update when I have data. JoelleJay (talk) 23:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Scopus coauthor citation metrics of Pedrizzetti's 272 (out of ~425) coauthors with 30+ papers (this is a pretty low cutoff; the median paper number is 44):

Total citations: average: 8184, median: 2775, Pedrizzetti: 5590.

Total papers: avg: 191, med: 120, P: 150.

h-index: avg: 33, med: 26, P: 38.

Top 5 papers: 1st: avg: 896, med: 318, P: 580. 2nd: avg: 553, med: 186, P: 422. 3rd: avg: 407, med: 150, P: 266. 4th: avg: 320, med: 128, P: 242. 5th: avg: 266, med: 108, P: 201.

So, Pedrizzetti is strongly above the median, but also generally well below the average (except for h-index). On the other hand, the standard deviations are outrageous--like >1.5x the average. I would say he is likely notable. 01:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Weak keep but stubbify. Per the analysis above, he has a plausible case for WP:PROF#C1 notability. But the article is an unsourced mess that needs to be hacked back. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that sounds very sensible. Mccapra (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greenside Primary School (Limpopo)[edit]

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

Primary schools generally aren’t notable, and despite being opened by the President, this one doesn’t appear to be so. Mccapra (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and South Africa. Mccapra (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 20:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Built NY[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. There are a handful of independent product reviews, see [29], [30], and passing mentions like [31]. Alas, nothing substantial, and the article has seen some COI activity. Ovinus (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ovinus (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient significant coverage indicates lack of notability. Elbatli (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Fan[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:SCHOLAR. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Heavy cites, even if you count only first-author work (which, judging from author order, is relevant), are enough I think for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep Seems to meet WP:NPROF based on citations, if possibly slightly WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not yet meet WP:PROF. I think that it is WP:TOOSOON. Gusfriend (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi, I added new information. Meta AI open sourced on 2022-07-06 the No Language Left Behind (NLLB) model which allows to translate 200 languages and is used by the Wikimedia Foundation.^[1] Angela Fan is the Corresponding Author and one of the 6 research and engineering leaders on the paper.^[2] The model has already been written about by CNET with Fan quoted just after Mark Zuckerberg.^[3] simon (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "No Language Left Behind - Driving inclusion through the power of AI translation". Meta AI Research. Retrieved 2022-07-06.
^ "No Language Left Behind: Scaling Human-Centered Machine Translation". Meta AI Research. Retrieved 2022-07-06.
^ Collins, Katie. "Meta's 'No Language Left Behind' AI Can Now Translate 200 Languages". CNET. Retrieved 2022-07-06.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To help with WP:SIGCOV, additional reliable WP:SECONDARY sources since 2022-07-07: New Scientist^[1], CNRS journal^[2] El Mundo^[3]. simon (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Sparkes, Matthew (2022-07-06). "Meta's AI can translate between 204 languages, including rare ones". New Scientist. Retrieved 2022-07-12.
^ Koppe, Martin (2022-07-12). "BigScience voit grand pour les modèles de langue". CNRS Le journal (in French). Retrieved 2022-07-12.
^ Diaz, Raquel (2022-07-07). "Meta presenta una nueva inteligencia artificial capaz de traducir 200 idiomas, incluso el asturiano". El Mundo (in Spanish). Retrieved 2022-07-12.

1 is behind a paywall. Can you quote the parts about her? 2 is a passing mention and not very independent. 3 is also behind a paywall. Can you quote the pars about her please? CT55555 (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extracts from #1: "Facebook’s owner Meta has created an artificial intelligence model that can translate 204 written languages and has released it under an open source licence so that anyone can use or improve the software." "The model, called No Language Left Behind, supports dozens more text-based languages than Google Translate, which currently works for 133, and Microsoft Translator, which caters for 110." [The model] "doesn’t yet match Wikipedia, which has articles in 327 languages." "Angela Fan at Meta says the company will continue to add other languages. “A lot of those languages are not spoken by a lot of people, and most of them don’t have written form,” she says. “And so even though there are several thousand languages in the world, we estimate that only a few hundred really have standard writing systems. And so we focus on those first. This is just the starting point.” "No Language Left Behind was developed using Meta’s new AI-specific supercomputer, called the AI Research SuperCluster (RSC). The machine is operational, but is still being added to, and when complete it will consist of 16,000 processors. Meta says at that point, it will be the fastest AI-optimised supercomputer in the world, performing at nearly 5 exaflops – meaning it can carry out 5 billion billion operations per second. Fan says that although the AI model can run on less sophisticated hardware, the supercomputer’s power was vital for quickly training and testing iterations of the model." "It can be difficult to qualitatively compare the translated text from AI models, so Meta has also created an update to its existing translation benchmark, called FLORES-200, that evaluates the result of translating more than 40,000 standardised sections of text. The company claims that No Language Left Behind is 44 per cent better than Microsoft’s equivalent DeltaLM research model using this benchmark, and marginally better than Google Translate." simon (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Something that contains two quotes from her is not independent (we need reporting that is written about her, without involvement from her) or significant coverage (her being the subject of some paragraphs, she is not the subject of this writing). CT55555 (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extracts from #3: "Ayer miércoles presentaron su primer gran éxito, NLLB-200, un modelo de IA capaz de hablar 200 idiomas, entre los que se encuentran algunos minoritarios oriundos de África, Europa y Asia. De hecho, el sistema está preparado para realizar 25.000 traducciones diarias en todas las apps de Meta, según destaca Zuckerberg." "Por su parte, el propio Zuckerberg aseguraba en una publicación de Facebook que esta tecnología no solo se usará en distintos productos y servicios de Meta como la propia red social e Instagram, sino que se ha implementado en sitios como Wikipedia." "'Miles de millones de personas en todo el mundo no tienen acceso a una tecnología o un servicio de traducción que realmente funcione bien para su idioma', explica Angela Fan, científica investigadora de Meta AI, en un video producido por la compañía. 'Realmente esperamos que la tecnología que estamos desarrollando haga que el metaverso sea inclusivo por diseño', añade la experta." "De igual modo supera a otros traductores actuales como el de Google que solo cuenta con 133 idiomas, además de así mismo, doblando el número de idiomas con los que trabajaba hasta ahora Meta." "'Para dar una idea de la escala del programa, el modelo de 200 idiomas analiza más de 50.000 millones de parámetros. Lo hemos entrenado usando el Research SuperCluster, uno de los superordenadores más rápidos del mundo', subraya Zuckerberg en una publicación colgada ayer en su cuenta de Facebook." simon (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My comments for 3 are the same as 1. Sorry. CT55555 (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also important to note that Fan is the corresponding author and one of the 6 lead engineer on the NNLB paper. "Angela Fan†,‡" "‡. Corresponding Author." "†. Research and engineering leadership, equal contribution, alphabetical order" simon (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (Note, I came here because I was invited by the article's creator via a message onto my talk page. While I like to think of myself as a neutral AfD participant, I expect that some see me leaning more towards inclusion. I have a stated interested in BLP articles about women, so presumably this is not canvassing, but I declare it here just in case). I actually was minded to vote delete, I see an absence of significant independent coverage and an unconvincing claim for notability. Then I saw Kj cheetham and David Eppstein !vote keep based on WP:NPROF. So I checked google scholar and see indeed very high citations. But honestly, I'm struggling to accept Google scholar results here, I know they are imperfect and when the subject works at Facebook as an AI expert, I can imagine how easy it might be to manipulate scholar results as an AI expert. So I will be ready to vote !keep based on WP:NPROF if anyone can convince me that the citations are bona fide, but I think when there is doubt, Google scholar is not the optimal source. So can anyone point to reliable citation sources? CT55555 (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Pinging @JoelleJay: who might be able to give better analysis on citations for the field. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks for the ping! I'll work on it. I do want to say that this is a field where a 2020 PhD can have ~700 citations on Scopus with top papers coming in at 201, 180, 148, and 115 cites, so we should DEFINITELY not be taking GS citations at face value. JoelleJay (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Kj cheetham
  
  Ok, so I looked at Fan's 56 coauthors who have >15 papers (this was the median number of papers among all her coauthors). Here are their Scopus citation metrics:
  Total citations: average: 3660, median: 1690, Fan: 1751
  
  Total papers: 68, 46, 26
  
  h-index: 20, 18, 12
  
  Top five papers: 1st: 828, 236, 683; 2nd: 446, 198, 339; 3rd: 290, 164, 230; 4th: 240, 127, 180; 5th: 175, 79, 100
  
  Publication in this field is unusual: not only are most research papers tied to industry rather than academia (making it difficult to do an "average professor test"), but working at Facebook/Meta AI, Google, Microsoft, etc. predicts very high citations very quickly. Normally when I see a coauthor with only 7 papers but the citations go 104, 55, 53 49, 28, 13, 8 I assume Scopus accidentally split off those papers from their primary profile, so I'll search their name directly. This usually reveals one or more other profiles of the same person (with one seemingly "central" profile where most of their citations are collected), and I'll manually merge them and recalculate their metrics. However, among Fan's colleagues, it's apparently the norm to have a paper count very close to one's h-index only a few years after getting a PhD. It's also reasonably common to have multiple >100-citation papers working as a tech with just a master's or even bachelor's. Someone can get ~3500 citations and 10 100+-citation papers in under 8 years, with 5 of them in just the last four years working at Meta AI.
  
  All of this is to say Fan's citation profile is very good for her experience level. Netting ~1800 citations and 5 100+ papers in six years is definitely exceptional for a 2019 PhD. But what about compared to someone who got a PhD in 2015 (TC: 4693; P: 29; h: 21; T5: 810, 638, 499, 366, 339), or 2010 (14800; 52; 32; 4454, 3016, 1186, 948, 507), or 2009 (16798; 56; 35; 3959, 1975, 1508, 1401, 735), or 2000 (42674; 152; 63; 6434, 4841, 3483, 3016, 2355)? Does she truly stand out as having significantly greater impact than the average professor (or senior researcher)? She is certainly on a terrific trajectory, but I think it probably be too soon to say she is currently notable in her field (when looking only at her citation profile). JoelleJay (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you for that, it's very interesting! I am going to change my !vote from weak keep to weak delete based on your analysis, as I think is a bit WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I'm not sure how an AI expert would manipulate citations. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG and I've not been persuaded that she meets the academic notability requirements either. CT55555 (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by CNBC#Former programming. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Market Watch[edit]

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

Detailed WP:BEFORE on ProQuest:

"Market Watch" + "Martha MacCallum" gave only one mention.
"Market Watch" + "Ted David" found several copies of the same press release on Ted David which only mentioned the show in passing.
"Market Watch" + "CNBC" gave only false positives that used the term "market watch" in uses unrelated to the show.

The only source in the article is a wayback link to CNBC's website, and I was unable to find any better sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by CNBC#Former programming It was a business show reporting business news, and this predates all social media so we don't even have 'this dude was on CNBC Market Watch talking about blah-blah-blah' cites (I'm sure they're buried on PRNewswire somewhere on an old NT server from 1997 still plugging along, but I have no interest in checking that). Nate • (chatter) 02:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by CNBC#Former programming - just another generically-named CNBC show from the past, with no significant coverage in any sources. Wes sideman (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Résidence Campuséa[edit]

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

NN college dormitory. Lack of independent coverage. Appears to be a routine building. MB 03:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Schools, and France. MB 03:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rotoli Xaba[edit]

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

Is the twenty-n-th person to qualify as Y notable? I don't think WP:GNG is met here. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Whether the 23rd to accomplish something is significant is a matter of debate, but given the history of South Africa and the apartheid regime, I would say that it qualifies as a WP:CCS. If it weren't for that, this article would just be essentially a resume, hence why I am on the fence. There is likely other coverage, but the best we have so far is [32] this journal (accessible via WP:TWL if you want to check it) which has 12 mentions of Xaba and goes into some detail. This may be on the borderline of notability, but I'm not completely convinced yet. ASUKITE 14:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: while I generally agree, Dr. Xaba qualified in Scotland first, where he was at least not legally subject to any restrictions he would have been under apartheid (also, he qualified in the 1920s-1930s, apartheid began in the 1950s whereas Dr. Xaba died in 1953, which would be considered the earliest days of apartheid). Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apartheid (as a formalised ideological large scale system of racial discrimination) began in 1948 with the election of the National Party, but legal racial discrimination long preceded the introduction of Apartheid in South Africa. Park3r (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not have enough sources giving indepth coverage of him to justify an article. We may have sources that will let us create a broader article on doctors of African descent working in South Africa as a group in a given time, but that is not the same as having enough sources to create an article on this particular person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being the "23rd person of colour" to become a doctor doesn't preclude him from possibly being the first black African. "Black", or POC in South African parlance includes Indians and Coloureds, and it's quite likely that the majority of early POC doctors were actually Indian, not black Africans. I'll try to find more sources. Park3r (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a very good point. If that turns out to be the case, I will withdraw the nomination - that is clearly notable. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Possibly" doesn't cut it, we don't have those sources. cagliost (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We do not have the depth of coverage to justify an article about this person specifically. The sources would be better placed in an article about early black doctors in South Africa. cagliost (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balkissa Sawadogo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

N4 (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Should be deleted until release. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet NFF yet. No scheduled release date either. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFF. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Susanna[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A professional football player, active at the highest level in club and national team competition. I am sure significant coverage like this can be found. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Devikka Tittle[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kiomy Luperon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mylene Croes[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Sohgian[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Christianity, Football, Middle East, and Palestine. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verbin Sutherland[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seidon Nemeth[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Im-Min Young[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tor-Lawrence Mana'o[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sulifou Faaloua[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to enough sourcing to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Falaniko[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soe Falimaua[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Aakib[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Sri Lanka. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tuaki Latu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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