< February 04	February 06 >

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Milosavljević[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. NYC Guru (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched newspapers.com and newspaperarchive.com, found nothing. However, searching for his name (Стефан Милосављевић) in his native language came up with some stuff I could not read. I tried translating a couple of things that looked like they were of possible interest, and came up with zilch. I think it's highly unlikely that this subject meets the general notability guideline. — Jacona (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently, the article does not have enough sources to establish notability. → Call me Razr Nation 04:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing GNG. I did a very exhaustive search for coverage that would establish the subject’s notability and did not find anything substantive in the way of reliable independent sources. Shawn Teller (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gradimir Grujičić[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - given that he has played so many professional games, I'm surprised to see this up for deletion. That being said, I can find barely any coverage. Best I found were two passing mentions in Radio Pozega and one trivial mention in Zurnal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just 4 top-division games in 2014. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2023 (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 Spanish Figure Skating Championships. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Spanish Figure Skating Championships[edit]

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

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Spanish Figure Skating Championships. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Also nominating:

2002 Spanish Figure Skating Championships
2001 Spanish Figure Skating Championships
2007 Spanish Figure Skating Championships
2010 Spanish Figure Skating Championships
2011 Spanish Figure Skating Championships
2012 Spanish Figure Skating Championships
2013 Spanish Figure Skating Championships
2014 Spanish Figure Skating Championships LibStar (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Spanish Figure Skating Championships ~~(and retroactively do the same for the recently deleted 2004 Spanish Figure Skating Championships, restoring its history)~~. As an annual national sports championship it is a reasonable search term, however they lack the WP:SIGCOV to establish standalone notability. Frank Anchor 14:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retroactively changing the deleted 2004 edition to a redirect is probably better suited for a WP:REFUND discussion, pending the outcome of this AFD, so striking that part of my vote. Frank Anchor 15:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all the championships to a single list, since the listed articles do not have much and can better go in a single entry, subsecting each championship and placing their corresponding references. --Luis1944MX (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a similar series of articles exists for Romanian Figure Skating Championships. LibStar (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LibStar you could probably start a merge discussion for those ones. Doesn't need to really go through AfD. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:09, 11 February 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raʽad Rehabilitation Goodwill Complex[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Nothing in gnews, a plain google search yields very little. Unless someone can find coverage in Persian. LibStar (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under criteria G12 and per WP:CPI. Most of the article seems to be copied from the organization's website, and looking through the article history, there doesn't seem to be a "last good version" that can be reverted to, nor is the non-copied content enough to support the article. MaterialWorks _(talk) 00:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, per MaterialWorks. Likely copyright violation. EnIRtpf09b^{chat with me} 09:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Speed Delete - no comment BeenDominic (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC) — BeenDominic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as WP:ORG fail. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:NCORP, and GNG. This is just a wall of text, possibly original research or copyvio, but in any case, it is a mess that needs to be blown up. We have ever been a web host, for which this person is using us. There is no way this passes our standards for NGOs. There is a single source, which makes it essentially plagiarism. Bearian (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2023 (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 Hold an Old Friend's Hand. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the Lover (Not the Love)[edit]

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

Very minimal coverage in reliable sources. Multiple attempts to redirect have been reverted without WP:BURDEN. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hold an Old Friend's Hand: Fails WP:NSONGS, no sources and did not get charted in Billboard Hot 100 or any singles chart besides Billboard. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:80C4:6DE4:83C3:8EAE (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hold an Old Friend's Hand. Fails WP:NSONG. Mooonswimmer 17:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hold an Old Friend's Hand. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2023 (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 Rex Smith#Discography. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forever (Rex Smith song)[edit]

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

Very minimal coverage in reliable sources. Multiple attempts to redirect have been reverted without WP:BURDEN. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - relying on a single source, this is essentially a copyright violation. Because I can presume that was unintentional, I would not oppose a redirect to Rex Smith or another appropriate target. Bearian (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rex Smith#Discography: Barely found anything about the song aside from a review. It's a hit here in the Philippines, but that doesn't make it notable either. ASTIG 😎🙃 04:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rex Smith#Discography. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2023 (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 Rex Smith#Discography. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Make a Memory[edit]

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

Very minimal coverage in reliable sources. Multiple attempts to redirect have been reverted without WP:BURDEN. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NSONG. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see no encyclopedic relevance suggest deletion. BeenDominic (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC) — BeenDominic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect to Forever (Rex Smith album). Fails WP:NSONG. Mooonswimmer 17:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mooonswimmer: The article in question is also up for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forever (Rex Smith album). Jalen Folf (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion, or redirect per prior comment, to Rex Smith. Bearian (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rex Smith#Discography: Barely found anything about the song. It's a hit here in the Philippines, but that doesn't make it notable either. ASTIG 😎🙃 04:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rex Smith#Discography since its album is on AfD. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2023 (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 Rex Smith#Discography. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forever (Rex Smith album)[edit]

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

Very minimal coverage in reliable sources. Multiple attempts to redirect have been reverted without WP:BURDEN. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NALBUM. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rex Smith#Discography; highly doubtful it charted on the Billboard 200. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 10:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested to Rex Smith. Bearian (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rex Smith#Discography: Barely found anything about the album aside from a Billboard ad and a review. There's also a review about the title track. There may be more sources about the album, but perhaps they're hard to find. ASTIG 😎🙃 04:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rex Smith#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Simon[edit]

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

While the death of Alice Simon, like the many other victims of the Holocaust, is tragic, I just don't see how she is a notable victim out of the millions of Jewish people who were murdered. She seems to only be mentioned for being one of the 86 people whos remains were included as part of the Jewish skull collection, which seems to be the actual notable topic here. I don't know if her name warrants being a redirect to that article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate: WP:NPERSON in its opening paragraph says subjects of standalone bios should be "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" I don't think any of the sources currently in the article substantiate this. Holocaust memorial bios are by design to humanise the otherwise faceless ordinary people who were subject to mass murder, and I don't think they confer notability for that reason. The Times of Israel and Milwaukee articles are about a personal family story of non-notable people, and don't indicate that Mrs. Simon is notable. The book "Personal Names, Hitler, and the Holocaust" only includes Mrs. Simon as an "example" regarding personal names of the people in the Jewish skull collection, which is the primary topic of the passage. I feel uncomfortable to have to write this out, sorry if any of this comes of as insensitive, I'm not trying to be. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your sensitivity, and I would have been inclined to !vote delete without additional sources that seem to offer more than how this article appears to have originally been written. I reviewed the edit history of the article and it looks like there was a lot of coatrack material that obscured the actual subject, but I think further editing can continue to enhance the focus on her.

For example, the 1994 and 2015 Milwaukee Journal articles (assuming the 1994 article can be accessed) could be further incorporated into its own section, to describe the efforts of her family to discover her history - while it is not necessarily unusual for people to learn of a history like this, the story of learning about her was subject to attention and recording, and it seems distinct from the skeleton collection.

I am not sure which Times of Israel source is being referred to, but I found this TOI blog/interview that includes (Google translated from French) "With the presentation of the life paths of Alice Simon, Elizabeth Klein, Jean Kotz, Ichay Litchi, Frank Sachnowitz or Adalbert Eckstein who perished in this place, I consider that I have taken the exact opposite of the Nazi theory according to which the individual is nothing and the people is everything. Because, by telling their story and their journey, it is their dignity as human beings that we restore to all these people gassed between these sinister walls." This seems to be identifying her biography as having significance, at least according to (translated) "Dr. Raphaël Toledano [...] co-director with Emmanuel Heyd of the documentary film Le nom des 86." I have not searched for French-language sources, but the documentary suggests there may be more coverage (e.g. reviews), and is another indication of her story being found significant enough to deserve attention.

There are also at least two sources that note her conversion to Protestantism - the first book in my comment below notes only her for this, and the Milwaukee Journal also notes this and extends on the noteworthiness by following the efforts of her Protestant family members to uncover their Jewish history. So from my view, there are several threads of her biography that have been found "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", and the article can be further refined to clarify the focus on her. She appears to be covered as more than an "example", and the context appears to be (e.g. the coverage of how difficult it was to identify the 86 and for her family to know her history) that a lot of this history is lost, and it can be significant when the biography is found. Beccaynr (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Poland. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG/WP:BASIC - I added two book sources to the article, one that briefly notes her as one of the victims, and another with substantial biographical information that appears to continue onto a page that is not accessible. There is also the 2015 news coverage in the article, that mentions previous coverage in 1994 and includes further in-depth coverage of her biography. Further biographical coverage is available from a Holocaust memorial source in the article (referred to by the BBC in 2019 as "the world's largest decentralized memorial"). She appears to be notable for her biography, according to the sources. Beccaynr (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Notability appears to hinge on the coverage of the family's search, so I'm unsure. However, @Beccaynr: this may take you to the next page in the Personal Names book. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - new sources introduced by Beccaynr, I’m leaning towards keeping this article. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Books, physical public monuments, and more evidence of her notability has been added to the article. Bearian (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pau Grande (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per WP:ONEOTHER. Onlk (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Onlk (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I couldn't find any other entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominators reason. Unneccessary disambiguation. EnIRtpf09b^{chat with me} 12:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: I see no encyclopedic relevance suggest deletion. BeenDominic (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC) — BeenDominic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a WP:DICDEF masquerading as a Dab page. There's no specific rule against this, but let's use common sense. Bearian (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hodgson (historian)[edit]

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

Failure to meet 'sources' and 'independent of the subject' criteria in the general notability guideline. Previous nomination was removed by an editor (User:Historygeek2207), who might potentially be the subject, in bad faith. An overwhelming majority of the references are indeed primary (18/24 if I'm counting correctly), while most of the others (like the Orcid or the newsletter) do not really attest to the notability of the subject. In addition, as I pointed out in the article's talk page, I think the editor's work on this article might go against the WP:NOTYOU policy, given that a majority of their contributions consist of working on this article specifically, and most of their other contributions involve the insertion of references to the subject's work on other entries. Demoxica (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, History, Spain, England, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNo articles about him, only things he's written. This in WaPo [1] is typical of what I find. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Still a young academic who may be notable one day. He has completed a PhD and written four articles based on it and a few book reviews. In my view that is not enough for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF and WP:TOOSOON, subject to re-creation with further academic work. We almost never keep associate professors. Bearian (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought perhaps his works were highly cited per WP:PROF, but it appears not. ResonantDis_tortion 07:39, 11 February 2023 (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. Joyous! | Talk 19:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arnavaz Taraporevala[edit]

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

No claim of notability and no independent sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF. I could not find any independent reliable sources about the subject of the bio in Google Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Women. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics, India, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems not notable, based on my searched, but I'll change my mind if anyone can find sources (ping me if you do). CT55555(talk) 20:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm a fan of including more articles on women in mathematics, but one publication (her thesis) in MathSciNet, single-digit number of publications and low-single-digit maximum citation counts in Google Scholar, and a calculus text for which I cannot find reviews even in MathSciNet, zbMATH, and MAA Reviews, are not going to pass WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NYC Guru (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet GNG or NPROF. --Mvqr (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not passes WP:GNG. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In my opinion, notability does not appear to exist in this case Almeida Fernando (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. I note that this person has not been cited a lot, and her social media imprint is close to zero. I could ask around with my colleagues. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2023 (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 Ice Prince. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super Cool Cats[edit]

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

The label is not notable. All of the references in the article are press releases about artists signed to the label. With the exception of Ice Prince, none of the other acts are notable. I also support a redirect to Ice Prince. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ice Prince. No benefit to having a redlink here; this didn't need to come to AfD. Chubbles (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ice Prince, to flesh out the target article and provide context. Joyous! | Talk 12:12, 7 February 2023 (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!} 04:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edson Lopes[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. I can find coverage of his appearances as a member of Brazilian Guitar Quartet, so that's a possible redirect target, and as a member of Quarteto Vivace Brasil. But WP:NOTINHERITED and I haven't located any significant independent coverage that focuses on him specifically. The existing sources in the article are insufficient; only the entry in Violões do Brasil appears to be independent, and as a single source I don't think it would meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Perhaps a Portuguese speaker can do better. Jfire (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on truly weak sourcing. He has essentially no social media presence or fan base. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2023 (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. Joyous! | Talk 19:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why I Killed Gandhi[edit]

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

This page is a stub for a poorly known film that carries the same name as Godse's famous book.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of coverage cited about court case regarding the film's release. Passes WP:GNG in my opinion. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Daily Pioneer gave the film 5 stars and the film has been reviewed by Amogh Rohmetra of ThePrint. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 08:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has multiple reliable sources coverage as detailed in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources in the page. NYC Guru (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2023 (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!} 04:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cdza[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable per lack of coverage beyond what's in this page and present sources being mostly unreliable, off-topic, and/or too brief to be significant. There's a section on Michael Thurber's page that covers the group which would be a good redirect target. QuietHere (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. QuietHere (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Fatal lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. In fact, there's only a single reliable source at all on the page - which makes it border on plagiarism and copyright violation - as well as a synthesis of less than reliable sources. In 2006, we would let this slide, but in 2023 we boil such garbage. I personally would not oppose a redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2023 (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. Joyous! | Talk 17:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AstroTown[edit]

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

I initially WP:PRODed this with the following rationale "Article on a non-notable, self-published book created by an WP:SPA. Neither of the included references appear to be genuine significant coverage/reviews in reliable sources, and searches did not turn up any kind of coverage on it." The WP:PROD was subsequently removed by an anonymous IP with no explanation, so I am bringing it here. To further explain the current sources, one is a dead link to a local newspaper, and the other is a promotional interview given by the author that barely actually talks about the book itself and would not count as a review. I could not find any kind of genuine reviews or significant coverage in reliable sources, which means this self-published book fails WP:NBOOK and the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, Germany, and Brazil. Rorshacma (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yet another case of WP:NOTADVERT. Fails WP:NBOOK, WP:MINIMUM and any other notability criteria. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 00:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:SALT. We have to start punishing illegal use of our property. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2023 (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. Joyous! | Talk 17:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serkan Demirel[edit]

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

Can't find anything notable about this futsal player. Best source would appear to be NOZ, which is an image caption only. He is not to be confused with Mustafa Serkan Demirel, a semi-pro Turkish footballer who has spent his career in the 3rd to 5th tiers of Turkish football. Coverage like Yalova and Fanatik relates to the Turkish footballer not the Turkish-Dutch futsal player subject to deletion. The article should be deleted due to concerns around WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Netherlands, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2023 (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!} 04:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tuyisenge Eric[edit]

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

I don't really see it, I maybe wrong, but looking at what is here and the citations. It doesn't seem to add to any real notability. To me this fails WP:GNG unless you can tell me wrong. Govvy (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Rwanda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG, with significant coverage already on page.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources on the page are 1. a very quote-heavy interview on the formation of a kit manager group N, 2. a routine transactional announcement N, 3. a passing mention in a squad announcement from the governing sports org N, 4. a passing mention in pre-game hype N, 5. what sounds like a radio interview N, 6. an article with no mention of either "Tuyisenge" or "Cantona" N, 7. another passing mention N, 8. a passing mention in a squad announcement from a football club N, 9. another quote-dominated interview about kit managers N, 10. a passing mention in a squad list N, and 11. another passing mention in a squad announcement by the governing body N JoelleJay (talk) 06:40, 7 February 2023 (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. Sandstein 16:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bakhshish Singh Sandhu[edit]

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

Prod removed without rationale or improvement, outside of some brief mentions of his elevation to a non-notable organization, zero in-depth coverage of this individual. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Sikhism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and specifically WP:GNG, WP:POLOUTCOMES, WP:SPAM, WP:SOAP, and WP:NOTWEBHOST. While I have sympathy for the Sikhs being discriminated against, that's not our problem. Party and political movement leaders are not automatically notable. There is scant evidence this person passed GNG. This is barely disguised spam and a soap box. In 2023, everyone on Earth knows we are not a free web host for their political agenda. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2023 (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!} 06:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karate (software)[edit]

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

Promotional article with substantial content additions by username resembling main author. No evidence of notability. No independent third-party WP:RS coverage found in a quick WP:BEFORE - just a few blog posts. The author-resembling username offered a list of blog posts as evidence of notability, but nothing in an independent third-party RS that would cover WP:GNG. An article would need solid sourcing to exist, and there just isn't the evidence that sourcing even exists. David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deprodded, thus ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participation since last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 14:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources listed only trivially mention the software, and the article in general reads like and advertisement. The fact that a good chunk of the content comes from an editor with a COI doesn't help it much either. MaterialWorks _(talk) 16:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete went looking and basically only found glancing coverage that proved this was actually something that existed—nothing significant enough to meet the GNG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:58, 11 February 2023 (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 Pureza station. Sandstein 16:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pureza Street[edit]

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

Unsure if this Historiles thread of Tumblr suffices as a reliable source for this article. The post relating to the street does seem to be about it, yet it is questionable if Tumblr alone can be used as a reliable source. On top of that the post contains two references: Daluyan: A Historical Dictionary of the Streets of Manila. Manila: The National Historical Institute, 2006. Print. 89. and Ira, L. Streets of Manila. Manila: GCF Books, 1977. 153. It should have been better if the page creator used these two firsthand sources as reliable sources instead of Tumblr thread, as Tumblr is a social media platform, and social media platforms tend to be problematic as sources if the social media posts were not from authoritative, official, or recognized entities like government agencies.

Still, if searching for more reliable, independent sources fails, then this road may fail WP:GEOROAD. Having these two firsthand sources may still be insufficient. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Found several false positive due to its association with the state run National Development Corporation and the Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Newspaper hits show that the street is flood prone and has some crimes committed there but so are nearby streets. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure it should be considered notable by itself, other than being connected to the NDC and PUP buildings and also being the one after which an LRT station is named. --- Tito Pao (talk) 09:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOROAD per nom. Not enough coverage aside from the ones presented by nom. SBKSPP (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have long advocated that streets that have named metro stations are notable per se. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pureza station per Bearian, WP:ATD, and WP:CHEAP. gidonb (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with Redirect to the station per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:33, 12 February 2023 (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. Joyous! | Talk 12:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inwa School of Performing Arts[edit]

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

Currently has zero in-depth sources from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Searches turned up zero as well. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Unless sources are shown in Burmese. Mccapra (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: Check source below. Thanks Taung Tan (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a single secondary source in Burmese through this VoA Burmese newsclip. Added it to the article for now, but I'm unsure if the source meets WP:GNG. It is significant (main topic), secondary and independent of the subject. However, I'm not sure it this one coverage is sufficient to notability or if VoA is considered reliable in this case (it can be unreliable for political topics). EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(changing vote to Keep) after the Myanmore source found below EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also found significant coverage about the school on Myanmore Magazine in English [2] and DVB [3]. The VOA source also appears to be significant to me. The school is important for Burmese culture and the theater world. Taung Tan (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2023 (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 Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Joyous! | Talk 12:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare[edit]

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

Notability was removed with the rationale, "First school of social work in Israel. One of the premier schools in the country. Center of research. It is notable." But no improvement. Currently has zero in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable secondary sources. Searches turned up mentions, but no significant in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the prod and I stand by my reasons. Removing a notability tag because I disagree with does not obligate me to improve it especially since I put a stub tag on it from the very beginning. Wikipedia is a collaborative site. Other people can improve the article.

BUT

Onel has a history of tagging dozens of articles and I remember very few where they give specific reasons for their opinion They have taken a few of my articles to AfD for whatever reasons and the articles were closed as keep. Perhaps one was deleted. Other editors have confronted Onel, some angrily, for being so critical. I can’t help but wonder if Onel is upset that people don’t agree with him/her.

if Onel gave specific details on why they felt the way they did and gave editors who are considered experts in education, Israel, etc appropriate time to address Onel’s legitimate issues, that would be different. Also, it would be helpful to have an editor fluent in Hebrew to help improve the article. BostonMensa (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and importance are not equivalent. You've typed lots of words about importance. Got anything to say about notability? 174.212.228.145 (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Not independently notable. Tacyarg (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any independently sourced content missing from Hebrew University of Jerusalem to that article and leave this a redirect. No independent notability and the longstanding precident described at SCHOOLOUTCOMES is to redirect nn colleges to their host university. 174.212.228.145 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively (smerge) as suggested to Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The target article is not so long as to be messy. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hebrew University of Jerusalem as a PREMATURE WP:SPINOFF of the latter. Both articles are short. For a school in a university this is common, for this famous university it is surprising and rather disappointing. A smart merger can improve the HUJI article and will benefit our readers. With prejudice in favor of recreation AFTER BOTH texts justify this. gidonb (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2023 (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. Joyous! | Talk 12:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SimplyTweet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable Twitter client; not a single one of the sources in the article, or at the previous AfD, are reliable sources. App was abandoned in 2013, article was tagged for insufficient notability in 2015, but it has not been improved since. DFlhb (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. DFlhb (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only sourcing in the article are blogs and nothing turned up since, dead piece of software with no lasting notability it seems. I don't find any sources. Oaktree b (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Couldn't find any sources that would show notability for the subject. Of the three sources, the first two are dead. One of the blogs isn't archived so I can't see it but looks like an interview based on the title. The other is a BlogSpot blog and in no way a reliable source. The third source is the dev's website. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. - Aoidh (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. When a page has a single linked source, it is in effect original research. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2023 (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. Joyous! | Talk 12:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EFS Facilities Services Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV Nick Jamie2 (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. Nick Jamie2 (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NCORP. It's confusing what this organization actually does with 20,000 employees. Is it a janitorial company? It's so confusing that I think he needs to be started from scratch. However, if it's just a company that provides maintenance services, that's far too ordinary to rate its own article in an encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources in the article seem to be anything other than routine coverage of a company that exists. No, that isn't true: some of them are press releases from a company or transcripts of friendly interview of executives by friendly press. A quick google search does not reveal anything more profound. I am not going to assume that I haven't missed some profound source that establishes the notability of this facility management company, but, as Bearian says, there isn't anything in this article particularly worth saving. Rockphed (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2023 (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!} 06:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gajesh Naik[edit]

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

Lack of notability via reliable sources, lack of reliable sources. Also, crypto related (see GS:CRYPTO). The BLP also reads like a puff piece. Molochmeditates (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I simply don't understand why the nominator had to first apply for PROD and then minutes later for AFD. Also I've no clue what they meant by "GS:CRYPTO". Talking about the article, the subject easily passes the notability criteria. There are literally tons of reliable sources available on the internet, the subject has also been mentioned on Forbes and Times of India as well, here's the link to the Forbes article [4]. Also someone who has been against puffery, to see that the nominator has remarked that it reads as a "puff" is rather surprising. If thats the case, puffery can be trimmed down if it's valid and liable enough. Also lack of reliable sources, really? The sources that are used for the article are very much independent sources (or most of it). It's very unlikely the article "lacks reliable sources". Especially when you're still working on it even though it hasn't even been a day since created.✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 09:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes contributor pieces don't count towards notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Rejoy2003 I apologize if I didn't do this right re applying for PROD. If you think this was a mistake, please undo my change.

However, I stand by my original statement regarding reliable sources and notability. Since this is a WP:BLP, the standards are much higher. Also, unfortunately all crypto related topics are under WP:GS - Wikipedia General Sanctions. You can see more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Blockchain_and_cryptocurrencies.

I am generally more than happy to help clean up any "puff" but with BLPs, the first step is establishing notability via Reliable Sources (not TOI, Forbes, etc.) The subject is still very young and I would love to see a Wikipedia biography of him. However, I cannot find enough notability in reliable sources yet, hence the nomination for deletion. Otherwise, I would have recommended an article cleanup template to help improve the content. I am also happy to stand corrected if there are more reliable sources than currently present in the article that you can provide. --Molochmeditates (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Molochmeditates Have you taken a look at the article's references now? I've added a list of references from publications local and global.✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 21:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional spam article, should be speedied really. One editor, edit-warring bad sources in - David Gerard (talk) 10:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Goa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP of a minor. Give him time to grow and become actually notable before putting up a wiki page about him. --Dans (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of RS. The Times of India is regarded as non-RS to questionable RS, and it's about all the article uses for sourcing. The Forbes article stated above is a contributor piece, so non-RS. Sadly, more crypto fluff here. Oaktree b (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:TOI, it's not completely an unreliable source. If that was the case you wouldn't had find any references being used by subjects associated with India. This case would be different if it was anything "government related". ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 18:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I mentioned above, it's semi-ok, in the absence of any other decent sources, it's still not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. However, as he is young, maybe this is a case of WP:TOOSOON if he does something notable in the future. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely doesn't fail GNG, you might wanna check the references of the article now. Also it's definitely not a case of WP:TOOSOON, we literally have child actors who aren't even in their teens having a Wikipedia page. The subject has done something within the crypto space and the matter can be found in local and global publications. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 21:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Business Insider is about a conference, unrelated to him. The Vietnamese article talks about how Twitter interacts with Instagram and doesn't even mention this person. I'm not seeing how they add value to the article; the Vietnamese article appears to have been chosen at random (again, it does not talk at all about this person). Ref #8 is a book that does not talk about him at all, it vaguely mentions the platform in the prior sentence, but has NOTHING TO DO with this person. Ref stacking is happening. I'm not reviewing every ref added to the article; these three are useless and I don't see the point in continuing. Oaktree b (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b Business Insider may not SPECIFICALLY talk about Naik but it does mention him. Those Vietnamese articles do mention some parts of him although it's not specifically written about him. Since you have checked two international articles, If I were you I'd rather rely on local articles like Navhind Times, Business Today, Incredible Goa, Sakshi, Ref#9 India Today, Gomantak Times, The Goan Everyday, Ref#17 & 18 again from Gomantak Times, NDTV and Ref#22 DD News Panaji. I'd suggest you to look more for local articles related to Indian publications like I've mentioned above where it's written and told more about the subject. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 04:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear GNG fail. The article creator should be ashamed trying to defend this so vociferously. Edwardx (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I be ashamed for defending my work? If you think this should be the case, maybe Wikipedia isn't for you. "AFD" is a process where other editors come together keeping in mind for the betterment of Wikipedia. I'm rather proud as this is my first article within related to cryptocurrency and with this I can actually learn. Not be ashamed. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 03:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons given above. --Bduke (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN Digital Creator or a Software engineer, fails WP:GNG for sure, after looking into creators' reply to all delete comment i think they had COI related with this,. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If a major contributor has replied to most of the editors who have voted for "delete", it doesn't necessarily mean they have had a COI with the subject of the article. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 03:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You either do or you don't, there is no in-between. If it is COI, just say so. If not, just say so. Either way is fine. Oaktree b (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it was I'd do what Wikipedia policy says. In this case, I'm not. Not that I have ever had any COI thing in the past, it always comes down to "speculations" from others. ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 06:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most coverage consists of puff pieces, unreliable sources, trivial mentions. Non-notable. Likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Mooonswimmer 18:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. This is a teenaged prodigy, but still at the start of his career. In the meanwhile, I don't see how he passes WP:GNG. Forbes used to be 100% reliable, but it sells space on its website for anyone who can pay for a press release. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian, I agree he is a teenaged prodigy. But not entirely at the "start" of his career. He's been active since 2018, that's like 4 years and has been mentioned in articles since 2019. Regarding Forbes, like I mentioned above it seemed to be a case of WP:FORBESCON; hence I didn't add that as a source in the article. But have you gone through the local publications like I did mention to another editor above? ✠ Rejoy2003 ✠ (contact) 02:38, 11 February 2023 (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. Joyous! | Talk 05:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anjum Sharma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I've declined a G4 request on this, as it isn't 'substantially identical' to the page deleted a couple of years ago. However, it clearly isn't suitable for a Wikipedia article, let alone a BLP, and if anything has worse sourcing than the version that was deleted as inadequately sourced. ‑ Iridescent 06:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. ‑ Iridescent 06:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivia type article with no further sources. Valiaveetil (talk) 07:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC) (Sock strike — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources found. He may have "appeared" in Slumdog Millionaire, but it appears to have been a bit part. Nothing we can use for ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Quick google search yields no results from independent reliable sources. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No RS found, fails WP:GNG for sure. I would thank to creator but the subject isn't notable --- Misterrrrr (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In my opinion, notability does not appear to exist in this case Almeida Fernando (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2023 (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!} 06:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don Seabolt[edit]

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

This Gospel singer/songwriter appears to fall short of WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. The Blue Ridge Quartet and Prophets Quartet are certainly notable; both have entries in Encyclopedia of American Gospel Music which list Seabolt as a member. However, the Donnie Seabolt Band is not included in that book, and I could not locate any coverage elsewhere which would establish notability for his band or him as an individual. There is passing coverage (e.g. announcements of tour dates) in local Pennsylvania papers and this column which reads as if it were a press release. As for the Gospel Music Halls of Fame, I found only this bare listing of 2016 inductees for South Carolina. I could not verify the Pennsylvania HoF induction. The article has been tagged for notability for over a decade. Jfire (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. Jfire (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I spent the last day and a half looking for evidence of the article subject’s notability, starting the moment I saw this nomination, and unfortunately I found none that would satisfy WP:GNG. Serratra (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the support, but it's not possible that you spent the last day and a half looking for evidence of the article subject’s notability, starting the moment [you] saw this nomination, because you commented less than 15 minutes after it was first posted. Jfire (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per plagiarism, because with one source, it's just a copy. See also WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST. If the closing admin feels it's appropriate, I would not oppose a redirect to Blue Ridge Quartet. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2023 (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. RL0919 (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games considered artistic[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a weird article, mainly having a vagueness problem. I've been looking at this, and concluded that criteria is too vague, mainly warrants inclusion by opinion more than fact. A lot of references are basically opinions that in the end do not warrant inclusion into the list. The whole talk page also has lots of criticism in regards to article. Super Mario Bros. as an artistic game? Really? Probably better to rewrite as "List of video games in museums", that makes more sense. Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pretty dumb considering that video games are art [5][6] which the article admits itself. Just because reliable sources hold certain games to a high standard and are like "this game is artistic!" does not really mean a damn for an encyclopedia. If all games are art (as most sources hold and the article admits), then there really isn't a point to the list. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will point out that Video games as an art form does not conclude they are, only discusses the debate around them. There's still plenty of debate, even with the court ruling, that video games are not "art" when compared to films or novels when it comes to the more philosophical ideas, for example, not the "does it qualify for copyright" question. Masem (t) 21:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of art games, which is a more obvious and clear criterion that encompasses both games that emphasize art in their presentation and those made for an artistic purpose. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that list could be deleted as well, quite honestly. It's still a bit too vague. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If art game exists as an article, then it goes to reason there are art games that can be categorized. If there are games that don't fit the list, they should be removed, but Wikipedia goes by WP:RS to determine what they are, not opinions of individual editors.

I'd say that drawing a distinguishing line between games that are "considered artistic" and are not "art games" is kinda pointless, though, since, as you said, all games are art. There is probably one game that every gamer thinks is a work of art to them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Art games are not the same as games that are considered artistic. An art game is one determined by how the developer has created it and more comparable to an arthouse film than a game that is a work of art, while games that are artistic are based on critical response to a game that are used to justify why games are an art form. --Masem (t) 20:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to list of art games for now, and we can decide whether that should stay later. Dronebogus (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but drastically rework and prune article, ideally if a volunteer is willing to do so. I don't know if it needs a rename but the definition should be akin to List of video games in museums: that this article should specifically be about games that the equivalent of MOMA considered art (List of video games in the Museum of Modern Art). Merely having references of someone somewhere saying the game is artistic is not significant, even if the reference is a normally reliable source - this article should specifically be about arts references. If nobody is up for the cleanup work, consider Draftifying as a second choice. SnowFire (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if it's List of video games in museums, then this page should still be deleted. Those are two completely different things. And it's not like the MOMA "considers" those games in particular as art; those are just the ones that are featured. Why? I Ask (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Too vague and subjective of a concept to ever coherently populate with reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 13:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. Artistic is just another WP:BUZZ word, like "fun" or "exciting" or "deep". There will never be a consensus about which games qualify under this heading. Even if you find multiple reliable sources that give it that stamp of "quality", that leaves hundreds of reliable sources that didn't. The qualities of each game should be covered at each game articles, instead of trying to list every game where journalists used a common descriptor. (e.g.: "scary", "amazing", "revolutionary", "emotional") Shooterwalker (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subjective nature of the concept of an "artistic video game" makes it difficult to determine what should be included on an encyclopedia. We strive to proviEe objective information that can be verified and supported by reliable sources, but the determination of what makes a video game "artistic" is a matter of personal opinion and cannot be definitively determined. Some may view games with beautiful graphics and sound design as artistic, while others may place more importance on a game's storytelling, character development, and themes. Mooonswimmer 18:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too subjective. Hard to determine what qualifies. The article "Video games as an art form" explains how the whole concept is debatable. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 03:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia follows WP:RS - so if some people believe it is outright impossible for games to be artistic and others do, as long as there is a significant number of people that do in reliable sources of note, it can merit an article. Something doesn't require abject proof to be an article, which is different than notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've said in a past discussions, there are reliable sources that discuss which NASCAR drivers drive Ford or sources that discuss what celebrities wear Supreme. I would still oppose a list to be made out of those topics for various reasons. Similarly, as mentioned above, we wouldn't have a List of scary video games. And while it's fine to have a page on the "debatable concept", similar to any article on the Global warming controversy, denying video games (which have narratives, music, and various other traditional artistic elements) as art is only held by a fairly small minority, including Roger Ebert who also said in the same essay that "hardly any movies are art", so WP:DUEWEIGHT should be given to those minority viewpoints. And as I see it, most reliable sources, including the Smithsonian and the literal federal government, see games as art. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well-produced juvenalia. Games considered art by whom? Even if we restrict it to reliable sources, the operational definition in the list itself seems comically stretched to "looks good visually". I challenge anyone to conclusively prove that no one has called any particular game "good looking" before, and therefore be excluded from the list. There is no possible set of coherent inclusion criteria that doesn't eventually amount to "all games". "List of games not considered art" would be both more verifiable and shorter. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim I think the logic we need is that this should be a list of games that are used directly as counterpoints to the question "are video games art?" So simply a source that says "this is an artistic video game" should not be sufficient to include. On the other hand, a source that says "X game proves that video games are an expressive art form" or similar language is more appropriate for inclusion. The reduced list may then be better located at Video games as an art form, which is about that whole debate. --Masem (t) 20:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't really need a list, though. Certain examples? Sure. A list? No... Why? I Ask (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a maintenance nightmare... Sergecross73 msg me 22:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This topic doesn’t seem to warrant a list per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The subjective nature of what is considered “art” in a video game is also problematic, if reliable independent sources are to used to make that determination. Also doesn’t satisfy GNG. Shawn Teller (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2023 (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!} 06:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piedmont, Arizona[edit]

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

There are a bunch of places named "Piedmont" in Arizona, but all evidence suggests that this is just a rail point, as topos and aerials show nothing but a long passing siding. Even the ghosttowns.com entry all but admits this to be the case. Mangoe (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concur on map Elinruby (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no straining to make this conclusion – a clear Keep. That is, Michael Crichton used Piedmont as a setting for his book (and subsequent movie), which makes Piedmont notable. This article serves to explain what Piedmont was and is. – S. Rich (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even ignoring WP:NOTINHERITED, all there is to say about Crichton's Piedmont can be said in a sentence; it's not even clear whether he pulled a name out of the air or picked a dot on the map. It is clear that the fictional Piedmont has nothing more to do with the real place than that both are in Arizona. Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see which way the winds are blowing in this discussion. While Piedmont is not NOTABLE enough for its own WP article, its existence is WP:NOTEWORTHY and should be built into the Web. I suggest we do a WP:BLAR and make it a redirect to List_of_places_in_Arizona_(P)

Delete Fictional settings of books and movies are not automatically notable, and the article even indicates that it's not clear that the book was set in this Piedmont. Topo map just shows a label on the railroad, no evidence this was ever a (notable) popluated place or ghost town. Without substantive sources, there is no basis for an article. Reywas92^Talk 17:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We need a list of ghost train stations in Arizona article as a repository for a lot of these. They don't all need their own article but the fact that they existed and the coordinates is kind of good important historical info. jengod (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:GEOLAND, since we don't have any reliable sources saying the subject exists, which is an essential requirement if we're going to have an article on it. The sources cited are:

GNIS, which is not reliable for this purpose
[7], an entry in a mining database which doesn't support the claim anybody ever lived here
[8], a self-published (and therefore unreliable) webpage by someone who admits they know nothing about it.

While there are some sources which mention it as the setting for the Crichton novel, that doesn't mean it actually exists or that anybody ever lived here, and it would need to pass WP:GNG to claim notability on that basis. It would make far more sense to cover it in the article about the novel in any case. The relevant content of the article consists of unsourced comments, probably WP:OR, about the relationship of the novel to the real place. I don't think a redirect is a good idea because there are two plausible targets (The Andromeda Strain and List of places in Arizona (P)). Hut 8.5 19:46, 6 February 2023 (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 Adams State Grizzlies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adams State Grizzlies cross country[edit]

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

Non-notable Division II cross country program. A quick search yields only a small bit of information, which would be much better served merged into Adams State Grizzlies. fuzzy510 (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Colorado. fuzzy510 (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Adams State Grizzlies. Doesn't have enough coverage to warrant a separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge very selectively. The tables shouldn't go, and most of the text is already at the target, but maybe the bit about the Hall of Fame could be moved over. Joyous! | Talk 18:34, 11 February 2023 (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. While there are slightly more editors advocating Keep than Delete, those favoring Delete are insistent that this is a minor accident and GNG has not been met. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spa Road Junction rail crash[edit]

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

article is about a very minor accident, and supported by a minimalist selection of primary sources. I would have used PROD but my experience is that anything railway-related is always controversial, so I'm bringing it here instead. I'm quite certain that local news articles could be found (every rail mishap generates something in local newspapers), but I'm not sure there's any merit in having lengthy articles on minor mishaps, derived entirely from the accident report. Elemimele (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm quite certain that local news articles could be found suggests you did not carry out a WP:BEFORE search. Garuda3 (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Valid complaint! In explanation, I had a look, but found only WP-mirrors and accident reports. My comment about local news articles was based on the idea that rail accidents always generate a bit of news coverage the day after, so the fact I didn't find anything with an amateurish Google search doesn't mean that someone with good newspaper search skills won't turn something up. Nevertheless, the accident probably still isn't notable; it didn't kill anyone, it didn't lead to any major changes in rail safety and technology, it didn't have any repercussions beyond, in the short term, a lot of very angry commuters (which is very non-notable on the UK rail network). I found this article while looking through List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom. The accident list article is more than a basic list; it's not just a list of accidents with articles, it's a list of accidents that meet criteria defined in the list and on the talk-page. It struck me that Spa Road didn't meet the criteria for the list. I had a look at the article and felt it read like someone's personal investigation rather than a WP article. Things leap out like the deduction of the driver's culpability based on the Drivers' Rule Book; we should report what newspapers say; we can report what the accident investigators say; but we can't start reading the rules and drawing our own deductions. Elemimele (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support; almost entirely unsourced, no indication of what makes it notable in its own right.

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just a routine railroad accident with no fatalities. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom as it makes more sense for this to be listed in a list if its minor accident with little notability other wise the article should be kept NotOrrio (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite worried about a redirect as the list itself does have some threshold: it's not a list of all UK rail accidents (we're not a database), it's a list of notable accidents. "Notable" in the list's context is being interpreted more broadly than it would for an article, so the list isn't merely a navigation aid to articles (as a true Wikipedia list often is). I think it's reasonable to have accidents in the list that don't merit a full article, but this one, I think, probably fails to meet the criteria even of the list (although it's currently in it). Elemimele (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article has issues. I've looked on the BBC News website and at The Times and not found anything. However, needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Although not as many trains were involved, a comparison to the 2018 Lewisham train strandings can be made at least in part. User:NotOrrio's suggestion is reasonable, but any outcome to this AfD should be without prejudice to recreation, subject to that recreation demonstrating GNG is met (V x RS, without OR). Mjroots (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not very exciting in itself but one of a series of accidents that led to the conclusion that AWS was not doing its job and TPWS was needed until something better could be devised. I've found some newspaper mentions that I'll add. One specifically mentions the rollout of TPWS under the heading "This could have avoided smash". --Cavrdg (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "One of a series of accidents" indicates to me it isn't notable on its own. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article has been improved since nomination, and GNG appears to be met. Mjroots (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient references for the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep New sources added show WP:GNG has been met. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How has GNG been met? I see routine coverage, nothing more. No changes in policy, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2023 (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 Long Lake (Lanark County). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Farry Island[edit]

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

Tiny island sourced only to geographic database. Content seems to be mostly original research. –dlthewave ☎ 03:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Canada, and Islands. –dlthewave ☎ 03:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Long Lake (Lanark County). Peter James (talk) 13:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Long Lake (Lanark County) for lack of sources. MaterialWorks _(talk) 17:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, totally agree it should be merged but remember that just because an article has a lack of sources, doesn't always mean it's non-notable; it may just be incomplete. See WP:ARTN. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Non-notable island that fails WP:GNG but could be part of Long Lake (Lanark County). Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect - location is obscure and notable content is unlikely. Elinruby (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

side comment - in Ontario a cottage is a summer weekend home, not a residence, so it's questionable whether Long Lake is a settlement either.Elinruby (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The subject itself is non-notable and fails WP:GNG; however, it seems there is a place for this content at Long Lake (Lanark County). Shawn Teller (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2023 (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!} 04:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pedlar Island[edit]

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

Completely unsourced; could not find any significant coverage to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 03:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Canada, and Islands. –dlthewave ☎ 03:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GEOLAND. We don't even have any meaningful stats, e.g. area (which wouldn't be enough to establish notability anyway). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Min Thiha[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, routine coverage only on the page, and it currently lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2023 (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!} 01:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glensworth Elizee[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:53, 5 February 2023 (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 Makati Central Business District. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amorsolo Street[edit]

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

Unsourced in most parts, most likely fails WP:GEOROAD. The only source presented, an old Philippine Star article, never mentions the actual road itself but the ramps of the nearby Metro Manila Skyway that covered the old Amorsolo Creek which generated some controversy. Unless more decent, secondary sources independent of the subject that does not only mention the street in the passing are presented, this street fails WP:GEOROAD. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a redirect to Makati Central Business District? Unlike other streets in the MCBD (notably Ayala Ave.), I can't think of any major reason why this street should be considered notable enough to have its own article. --- Tito Pao (talk) 09:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Makati Central Business District per Necrothesp's suggestion. Fails WP:GEOROAD per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2023 (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!} 01:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lennard Remy[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:SPORTBASIC with no coverage found in Google, Google News, Google Images and ProQuest. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 11 February 2023 (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!} 00:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

San Miguel Avenue[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOROAD spectacularly. The two sources presented do not give the subject the notability strength: the Arkitektura.ph webpage (archived copy) speaks of San Miguel Building and only mentions the avenue as part of the building's address. Another source, a BusinessWorld article (archived copy), does not even mention the road: how come itvwas used as a source if the subject is not even mentioned there? Unless more decent and reliable, independent secondary sources are presented, this road fails WP:GEOROAD in a dramatic fashion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOROAD per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google Books and News search yields only articles associated with one of the buildings located in the area or traffic/ crime incidents. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:00, 10 February 2023 (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!} 00:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kamuning Road[edit]

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

Likely fails WP:GEOROAD, with very little sourcing to reliable, independent secondary sources that do not mention it in passing. The only source used is [9] (current page is at [10]), which is still not sufficient. Unsure if its national tertiary highway status can help it evade WP:GEOROAD rules. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than being the road that connects Tomas Morato Avenue and EDSA, I can't think (yet) of any compelling reason for this street requiring to have its own Wikipedia article (e.g. any historical or major newsworthy event) --- Tito Pao (talk) 09:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOROAD per nom. Not a major road, a road that has little to no well-known establishments unlike Tomas Morato Avenue. SBKSPP (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2023 (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 Asian Development Bank. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ADB Avenue[edit]

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

Unnotable road, not reliably covered in independent, secondary sources. The only two sources used do not suffice the avenue's notability: [11] only fleetingly mentions it, as it is about the buildings (not the avenue itself). Quote: "EVERY DAY, 500 copies of local and international newspapers are delivered to the Asian Development Bank Headquarters (ADB HQ) at 6 ADB Drive, Mandaluyong City. The triple-A rated international financial institution subscribes to nine local dailies and 35 foreign titles, including The Marshall Islands Journal, an independent weekly that serves as the only paper for a Micronesian nation of islands -- population: 67,182 -- in the middle of the Pacific Ocean."

The second source, [12], seems more plausible, yet no longer accessible today. The rest of the article is unsourced. In effect the avenue fails WP:GEOROAD. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Asian Development Bank where it is mentioned. Also, here's a live copy of EO 466 series of 1991--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asian Development Bank. Fails WP:GEOROAD per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2023 (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.