< August 09	August 11 >

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 Gene Cotton#Albums. Noting that there is sourced content that can be merged. czar 01:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the Gray of the Morning[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NALBUM. RSN says that AllMusic is only reliable for their written reviews; their catalog doesn't connote notability. I'm not sure that the newspaper articles, which are good sources, cover this album in enough depth for WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find no reviews of the album, given the age of the thing/before the internet, not surprising. Plenty of hits in 19th century newspapers for the phrase... I don't feel qualified to vote either way at this point; if others can find sources, I'll revisit. Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gene Cotton. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond AllMusic and a segment in a Billboard magazine. SBKSPP (talk) 03:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 00:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gene Cotton. The BLP could better use these sources, such as they are. The Billboard "segment" linked by User:SBKSPP seems a bare mention. BusterD (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect will do. SBKSPP (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per BusterD or Merge. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of United Kingdom MPs who only sat in the 29th Parliament[edit]

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

This seems like WP:OR by way of WP:NECC. I can't really seem to find much that discusses MPs who only sat in the 29th parliament as a group in WP:BEFORE, but it's not a particularly easy topic to search for. TartarTorte 23:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete as A combination of OR and trivia. Mangoe (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Combines pure WP:OR and trivia. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 04:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and United Kingdom. Justi yaya 06:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete trivia. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not remotely important, useful, notable, or otherwise encyclopedic information. WP:INDISCRIMINATE to the extreme. Dronebogus (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP: INDISCRIMINATE. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 15:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Spudlace (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Less Unless (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saky Airport[edit]

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

The Saky airport is already quite well covered in the article about the Novofedorivka military settlement, which the Saky airport is part of. Thus there is no need for another similar article. BlackFlanker (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Novofedorivka where it is already covered in detail. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the articles of Novofedorivka and Saky Airport are about two different topics. They should be distinguished from each other as the first is about a settlement and the second is a military airbase.--Aronlee90 (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Justi yaya 06:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ it makes no sense that the article on the settlement of Novofedorivka is being treated as the article on the military air base. Super Ψ Dro 08:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this page, rename Novofedorivka to Saky Airport and make a new page for Novofedorivka as BilletsMauves suggests. Super Ψ Dro 09:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and rename Novofedorivka to Saky Airport. The village itself is notable per WP:GEOLAND, but currently its article almost only deals with the air base, in a much more extensive way than the dedicated article. BilletsMauves^€500 09:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that. Then create a new page actually covering Novofedorivka. Super Ψ Dro 09:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, this could be a good solution too. BlackFlanker (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and rename as proposed above. There’s little in the Novofedorivka article that doesn’t pertain to the airbase. —Michael Z. 13:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ukraine Atlantic306 (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Merge & keep. I found this looking for [Saki Air Base]. I wanted this page title. Minimal chance that I would ever have successfully remembered and searched for "Novofekorivka". Wooverine (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I presume a redirect would be left behind, solving that issue. —Michael Z. 00:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename into Saky Air base and transfer information from Novofedorivka to the present article. It's the official name of the air base. Novofedorivka is the settlement. Sgnpkd (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then move Novofedorivka to Saky Air Base Both Saky Air Base and Novofedorivka are notable, but as noted by others Novofedorivka is basically purely discussing the air base. So that article should be moved to the correct title, which is with "Air Base" and not "Airport" because almost all WP:RS describe it as an "air base", and any editor can re-create the Novofedorivka articlw with content that discusses it as a town, not as an airbase. Jumpytoo Talk 06:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and strongly oppose moving Novofedorivka. Redirecting an article about an urban locality to an article about a military base is just absolutely nonsensical. Most of the information from Novofedorivka must be shifted to the article about the airbase (with appropriate attribution), but the rest such as population and administrative status must be kept there, this is not appropriate material for the article about the airport.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is obvious that once the article was moved, the population and administrative status would have been removed. By the way, such info is present only and exclusively in the three-sentence long first paragraph of the article. Literally everything else is about the air base. Super Ψ Dro 09:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly my point. Removal of relevant sourced info is, well, vandalism. Instead of moving any articles around, we just need to move the text from one article to another with appropriate attribution.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Novofedorivka is its own settlement, with a population of more than 5,000, distinct from the airport. Information on the airport should be merged into the airport article, but neither article should be deleted as they are distinct subjects. Kges1901 (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aronlee90. UlyssorZebra (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After looking at the version of this page on ruwiki, ru:Саки (аэродром), one can see a lot of content to include. My very best wishes (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is clearly sufficient information on the two distinct things—the settlement with a population of some 5,000 and the military airbase—to have two articles: one on the airbase and one on the settlement/town. So, both should be kept. Then, some of the info on the airbase should rather clearly be placed into this article, rather than the article on the nearby small town of Novofedorivka, where a bunch of the airbase-specific information resides today. N2e (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be well covered by reliable sources and meets WP:GNG, and is distinct enough from the settlement to warrant a separate article. No comment on the name change. - Aoidh (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Amsterdam (Mad Men)[edit]

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

Basically just an episode recap w/ a couple perfunctory reviews attached. Nothing to indicate this was an especially notable episode. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reviews from reliable sources cited in article. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it does not need to be *especially* notable, just notable. In this case, it has sufficient coverage that indicates that it is notable. matt91486 (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every episode of any TV show w/ a following gets reviewed and rated. Is that really enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If the reviews satisfy the notability guidelines, then YES, it is enough. Many individual episodes of TV shows do not have articles on Wikipedia because they don't have reviews. And, there are many on here that have articles but do not have ANY reviews listed (or found in a search). Why not concentrate on them instead of articles that have reviews, and therefore already pass notability guidelines. Your opinion that 2 reviews isn't enough does not supersede guidelines and nominating these articles wastes the time of everyone involved in the discussions. Thx. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  You're the one who suggested I go through AfD when you rescinded my PROD. Otherwise, I'd probably have let it go. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I don't like that random episodes of shows can warrant a standalone article, it does meet Wikipedia's guidelines on what should be an article. It has significant coverage in reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject, and it meets the episode specific guideline WP:NTVEP. - Aoidh (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solving[edit]

Hopefully extra sources can be found to keep this article, but in the meantime... Please consider whether this article meets WP:OR and whether independent sources support that it is separately notable to problem solving. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. I'm so sorry, I had the wrong page open when clicking on Create AfD. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Icar[edit]

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

Fails WP:N as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A BEFORE search didn't turn up much, only primary/social media accounts, storefronts, a single USERG review at RPG.net, mentions on unreliable amateur RPG blogs, and so on. Woodroar (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Excepting for the RPG net, which seems like a non-reliable blog, Google, News, Books, and Scholar reveals no sources, on RPG Geek, a routine database, there's no ratings or any web links that are RS. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article barely confirms that the entity exists, WP:Notability is not shown at all (no reception, reviews, etc). WP:NOTCATALOGUE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Noting little discussion of specific sources. czar 01:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish material culture[edit]

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

Not a subject. Per se. A loose necktie (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Judaism article, was hoping for an article on the cultural or material history of the religion, seems that we don't have one on wiki. This seems to be all the "stuff" that goes along with the religion if you will. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an established area of academic discourse, as can be readily seen with Material culture. Any major ethnic or religious group which has been the subject of academic inquiry of this kind would be eligible to have its own page. A Google Scholar search for Jewish material culture yields numerous results which could be used to expand the article.
Keep *however* - I would mark this as a stub as it is clearly a mere beginning since it only basically only covers clothing in Uzbekistan. (Alternatively, it could be draftified.) An article that covers all of the material culture of Jews (presumably as a race, a culture, and a religion) will be very large. Searches on "jewish cultural artifacts" and "jewish clothing" yield scholarly articles. Undoubtedly there could be many more topics as hinted at by various articles on culture and in particular archeology. The Material culture article has no hint of links to religion, and that is quite possibly work that needs to be done on that article as well. However, it would need to cover a range of religions. The article on Judaism makes no specific references to material culture, and if this article is greatly enhanced that article could point to this one. Lamona (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider possibility of draftification or turning this into a stub article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because of the weak deletion rationale presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above Andre🚐 03:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kylie Minogue albums discography#Compilation albums. czar 01:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confide in Me (2016 album)[edit]

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

This is a label-promoted limited release which was not supported by the artist in the sense that there were no new recordings, nor any formal promotion. The covert art is recycled from a previous release. A search of sources here throws up nothing of note. It does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Could be a redirect to the discography as a viable search term. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kylie Minogue albums discography#Compilation albums as a non-notable compilation, but plausible search term. ✗plicit 12:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kylie Minogue albums discography#Compilation albums. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond an announcement. Just a reissue of her 1994 album. SBKSPP (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Lennox[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA. His highest ranking by Fight Matrixwas 28th in the world welterweight rankings. Also never previously appeared in Sherdog's top 10 rankings. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Iowa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VersaLogic[edit]

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

Article lacks WP:SIGCOV, and their only mainstream coverage was around their headquarters moving cities. It is also unclear whether other links are mostly primary sourced since they no longer load. Some of their sourcing is also WP:SPONSORED, such as the article from militaryaerospace.com. A current search of the company does not show any significant secondary source coverage. Additionally, the creator of this article, Jason R Krueger, appears to have been a marketing employee of VersaLogic and failed to disclose this. PDXBart (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: @PDXBart, I've added archive links to all the articles so they should all load now for easier review. I'll look at this article in a bit; haven't assessed anything yet. --Kbabej (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and I am unable to locate anything that does. Topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The Private Lives of Jordi Mollà & Domingo Zapata[edit]

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

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM as no reviews found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All possible sources seem to be of a tabloidal nature, so they are not usable for notability. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:443C:9603:3623:E956 (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Milani[edit]

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

~~Wikipedia is not a resume or CV. No reliable sources available to establish WP:GNG. PlayOboe (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Beccaynr (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Switzerland. PlayOboe (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are all in German, will rely on others to review them, appears non-notable based on above. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My searches found nothing to suggest notability, no reviews of the one book I found by her. CT55555 (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC - Italian sources include a 2017 book review in la Repubblica, substantial coverage of her and her work in a 2018 article in La Stampa, substantial coverage of her and her work in a 2019 article in Elle, and her quoted substantially as an expert in a 2020 article in Corriere della Sera. There appears to be additional coverage in Italian media available via GNews. Beccaynr (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet at least WP:GNG as per sources found by Beccaynr. Not sure if quite enough for WP:NAUTHOR, but doesn't matter. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the articles cited by Beccaynr meet GNG, albeit barely. With only one book, and not listed as a best seller, I don't think this meets AUTHOR. I'm also not so very sure that this person isn't a flash in the pan. Lamona (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources found by Beccaynr. Suonii180 (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Maggie Betts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Engram (film)[edit]

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

Short film fails WP:GNG "significant coverage " and WP:NFO:

"The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. The film is historically notable. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. The film is taught as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program."

This film has done none of these things. Moved to Draft, put back in mainspace with same sourcing, which boils down to 'socialite makes film', profiled in the fashion/social pages of three fashion/socialite focused titles. Now there's nothing wrong per se with socialites making films - it's whether they have made notable films... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not sure if these help, one review in Vogue [1] and a rather bad review from an Austrian film festival? [2]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So the Vogue one is already in the list of sources for the article, I don't think the second one I found helps. Oaktree b (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second review is unrelated to the short film Engram. In addition to Vogue, the film has received reviews from The New York Times and the fashion magazine W. Jim Classical (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist, to see other opinions on this film.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator.Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to filmmaker Maggie Betts. Most small films would enjoy getting significant coverage from the NYT, W Magazine, and Vogue. These three sources might seem to bring the subject to meeting GNG but I'm inclined to agree with the nominator that despite those reviews, this is a film few actually saw. These sources (largely about the filmmaker) would better serve the BLP than one of her works. I'd suggest this article not be deleted; it's not inconceivable Betts's work may one day get a wider visibility. BusterD (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AV (musician)[edit]

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

No claim to notability per WP:NMUSIC, and no independent sources to show that WP:GNG might be met. The sources in the current version of the article include two recycled versions of the same text (most likely a press release), two lists of nominees for the Headies Awards and one source that mentions his participation in a concert in Kigali. A WP:BEFORE search didn't yield anything better. bonadea contributions talk 12:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. bonadea contributions talk 12:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I find a few Nigerian sources, [3] and [4] with similar wording, appear to be recycled press-releases. Here [5] and here [6] also using very similar wording. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete as non notable and as per Oaktree b-- recycled press release do not satisfy sourcing for inclusion requirements.
Delete, press releases are primary sources and do not contribute to a WP:GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even tough lack significant coverage he meets WP:NMUSIC because of The Headies award nomination. Zeddedm (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Headies nomination doesn't carry much weight IMO, probably TOOSOON.-KH-1 (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 01:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prim Lyza[edit]

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

This person is not notable, according to a thorough online search. There are no publications to support her claims of work. Fails general notability guidelines. PlayOboe (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Beccaynr (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PlayOboe (talk) 12:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Cambodia, and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Two sources in Cambodian script, don't appear notable using GTranslate. Simply talking about something related. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on a search for Khmer language sources aided by machine translation. Issues with the article can be partly attributed to its origins as a puff piece. Another contributing factor is wp:systemic bias due to a lack of English language sources and shortage of proficient editors from Cambodia. I've taken some initial steps to try to address sourcing and tone issues. Notability assessment follows.

Difficult to assess as an actress, probably does not meet WP:ENT. Filmography looks incomplete and lacks details, but appears to be a product of good faith efforts; finding reliable secondary sources is challenging. Primary-sourced evidence of acting career in the form of a "portfolio" of excerpts on her YT channel, appears to be mostly TV rather than movies; unclear if in major or minor roles. Recipient in 2013 of "most popular actress" category in Cambodian entertainment awards show, but some controversy over this as it was decided by popular vote. Interestingly, a recent news article chose to cite her appearance in an MV rather than some more substantial acting achievement. Youtube search finds evidence of non-acting appearances (talk/variety shows) on television (MyTV, PNN) supporting some amount of celebrity status. As a fashion model, there are primary-source claims via interview/spokesperson that she has attended shows in multiple foreign countries; was able to substantiate Vietnam Int'l Fashion Week 2016. "The Secret of the Night" award also appears to be fashion-related (YT) but does not seem remarkable. With respect to invited to participate in events and invited to opening ceremonies of retail outlets it is unclear whether attending as a guest or for modeling work, may be a mix of both. Clearly not of supermodel-tier notability.

Having failed to find enough evidence to support notability based on specific critieria, we look to WP:GNG. Has coverage spanning a decade across multiple news outlets. Gets attention for dressing extravagantly and flaunting her figure, so need to filter out sources (e.g. sabay, khmerload) where coverage is basically a thinly veiled excuse for photo galleries. There is SIGCOV in articles written specifically about her in entertainment sections of newspapers, though much of it is celebrity gossip that I think we'd rather not include in the article:

Generic celebrity/socialite coverage. [7] Wears expensive clothes, [8] or is she just exaggerating the price? [9]
Scandal involving an affair with a married man who had abandoned his family [10][11]
Charity work [12][13][14]
Criticism from conservatives about immodesty, materialism, abandoning traditional values etc [15][16]
Not active in local acting scene [17][18]
Revelation that she is a single mother [19]

These come from Khmer language edition of The Phnom Penh Post (oldest English newspaper), as well as Koh Santepheap Daily (widest circulation) and Kampuchea Thmey Daily. The subject has sufficient celebrity status in Cambodia to warrant sustained coverage; although this could well be a case of famous for being famous (or scandalous) since her acting output isn't treated by sources as of particular note — found no in-depth discussion of any acting role she has taken. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting attention for "dressing extravagantly and flaunting her figure" is not a notability criteria on Wikipedia. On that logic, we've to include all Instagram stars on Wikipedia. PlayOboe (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Beccaynr (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Instagram stars receive sustained significant coverage in reliable sources. That is the notability criteria being cited here. Stop trying to twist my words. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the new sources quoted above. Have stricken my prior !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
she appears to be "Kardashian famous", only famous for "being famous" if that makes sense. As is Paris Hilton. I'm all for eliminating bias on wikipedia, use of non-English sources and the lack of female-focused articles are always important here. Oaktree b (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cones Lake[edit]

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

It's a name on an old map, and everything else here seems to WP:OR, nothing verifiable by reliable sources. Fram (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and North Carolina. Fram (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cones lake is recognized on all topo maps of the region since 1936, not just present on one map. I have added a source from mindat.org, as well as photographs of the described features. KyleGorczynski (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Your (or someone else's photo's) are WP:OR, as are the claims in the article about the origin, naming, current status, ... If all we have for reliable sources are maps, then we shouldn't have a separate article on this artificial lake. Fram (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I searched Newspapers.com and found one mention, something like "so and so from Fayetteville spent last Sunday at Cones' Lake and enjoyed a picnic dinner". MB 00:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With the new sources added, there is no valid reasons for deletion WP:DEL-REASON. I have included a mention from Newspapers.com that includes the many lakes of the Cone family, specifically referencing trout-stocked lakes, which includes this one. Additionally, Cones Lake is shown on every topographic map since 1936, including the most current ones. I do not know how to cite these without spamming the reference section, but if a user could specify how to include all of those, they can be added. The user above even confirmed that there was additional mentions of the lake, after only searching one source site. KyleGorczynski (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC) There are no valid reasons for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyleGorczynski (talk • contribs) 12:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this, which doesn't even mention Cones Lake, but discusses briefly Bass Lake and Trout Lake? How does that help in keeping Cones Lake? Fram (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have sourced "The lake was used as a trout hatchery in the early 20th century to provide stocking fish for Trout Lake." to this article; please don't do this, your source does not support that claim, and adding it there as if it does is not acceptable. Fram (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the citation at your request, do you have any other issues with the article? There are multiple secondary sources including historical maps cited, as well as links to other prominent local features and locations. The photos are NOT citations or proof, they are simply photos that show the location. Nothing about adding my own photos violates Wikipedia's guidelines. As is, the article meets no WP:DEL-REASON. KyleGorczynski (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GEOFEAT. You have nothing but maps (the one text source[20] doesn't mention Cones Lake). Fram (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly ignoring the other two sources, with one being from mindat.org, that do mention it by name. Additionally, WP:GEOFEAT specifically cites that dams on their own can be considered notable features. You seem to have some type of bias against this article and judging by your user history it seems you have a history of erring on the side of deletion in most articles that you are involved in. You have made claims here that are untrue and seek to undermine the page's reliability and notability. KyleGorczynski (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mindat? "Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters."? And even then it is just a name on a map. It has no text about the lake. Fram (talk) 07:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your point is on the user contribution aspect, but it certainly does name the lake by name and provide information about the lake. The mindat website is heavily used as a source in the geology and minerology world, and the wikipedia page on mindat certainly cites it as a relaible source. KyleGorczynski (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Okay, well... indeed, that "spent last Sunday" is the only newspaper result about the lake (out of a paltry eight results total), if you search for "Cones Lake".^[1] But if you search for "Cone Lake", this causes the search engine to include "Cone's Lake"... giving us 140. Here are some of them that seem credible to me. It is important to note that there is another similarly named lake near Greensboro -- I am only including refs here where it mentions Blowing Rock. Here are ten, although I could easily go find more if necessary (I only went a couple screens down the results). ^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11] It looks to me like there's definitely enough between these to substantiate what the article says (including its ownership, purpose, construction, and some stuff that happened there over the years. jp×g 12:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per JPxG, those do seem to show notability via WP:GNG, though it might be worth mentioning those alternate name differences in the lede. - Aoidh (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Whitsett News". The Daily Times-News. Burlington, North Carolina. 1961-08-17. p. 36. Retrieved 2022-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.
^ "Angler Spencer Expected Crappie, Landed Eight Pound Bass Instead". The High Point Enterprise. High Point, North Carolina. 1952-01-27. p. 34. Retrieved 2022-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.
^ "Blowing Rock Notes". The Lenoir News. Lenoir, North Carolina. 1914-09-11. p. 3. Retrieved 2022-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.
^ "Again Sojourning In Beauty Land". Watauga Democrat. Boone, North Carolina. 1914-08-06. p. 1. Retrieved 2022-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.
^ "Solitude of the Hills". The Charlotte Observer. Charlotte, North Carolina. 1933-08-27. p. 30. Retrieved 2022-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.
^ "Blowing Rock Items". Watauga Democrat. Boone, North Carolina. 1913-02-27. p. 2. Retrieved 2022-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.
^ "Beautiful Dinner at "The Rock."". The Charlotte Observer. Charlotte, North Carolina. 1918-09-01. p. 17. Retrieved 2022-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.
^ "Record numbers wade into trout streams". The Charlotte News. Charlotte, North Carolina. 1956-04-06. p. 21. Retrieved 2022-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.
^ "Easter Event Scheduled In Blowing Rock". Asheville Citizen-Times. Asheville, North Carolina. 1951-03-09. p. 9. Retrieved 2022-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.
^ "All Outdoors". The Charlotte Observer. Charlotte, North Carolina. 1953-08-01. p. 11. Retrieved 2022-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.
^ "Cone's Fish Lake Dam Breaks". The Charlotte Observer. Charlotte, North Carolina. 1912-11-26. p. 4. Retrieved 2022-08-12 – via Newspapers.com.

Delete of rename to Cone Lake and start over. From what I have found there are two different bodies of water - the notable lake is the 22 acre Cone Lake in Watauga County, NC which could pass WP:GEOLAND, and then we have our article on the artificial reservoir "Cones Lake" in a different county and my estimation is that it does not pass WP:GEOFEAT. Some sources also confuse the two and most of the google hits are just regurgitation of wiki. From maps we can see that Cones is not the same lake as Cone. Cones looks to be just a few acres. At that size it would not be called a lake by most standards - it would be called a pond. Lightburst (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to sources found by JPxG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Katie Button. czar 01:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cúrate Bar De Tapas[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP, lacks in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Refs are minor mentions, except NYT article which is a few paragraphs, but with large quotes from the owner it feels like a travel section puff piece. Not enough to establish notability. MB 06:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and North Carolina. MB 06:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Forbes coverage looks legit, even though it's a contributor piece. [21] Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Tapas bar? Forbes Sites is not RS. I worry about the notability of the principal's article, Katie Button, TBH. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Katie Button as WP:ATD. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks non-routine coverage to meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)v[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Katie Button. This was how I thought I'd close this AFD then I saw that this wasn't the consensus so I'll opine here instead. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Katie Button per above, not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:NCORP. Spudlace (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sari Finn[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dominica women's national football team – There is an interview [22], but that isn't at all independent. [23] is a database. [24] probably amounts to SIGCOV. If there were another source I'd vote weak keep, but I can't find one, and for a young player like Finn there's unlikely to be significant offline sources. There seems to be no other notable Sari Finn, so a redirect is okay—it's not shadowing some potentially notable figure. Deletion is also acceptable. Ovinus (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, not mentioned at proposed redirect target. Avilich (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to AS Arta/Solar7. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CDE Colas[edit]

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

This is a duplicate of AS Arta/Solar7, which used to be called CDE Colas. This can be confirmed through the links in the article which now redirect to Arta/Solar7 LoganZombieOfTime (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to AS Arta/Solar7 per nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above as plausible search term. Fats40boy11 (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AS Arta/Solar7.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of vice presidents of Nigeria by home state[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of presidents of Nigeria by home state which resulted in “delete” this is an unsourced cross-categorisation that does not meet WP:LISTN. Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks like some non-encyclopedic cross-categorization to me. BilletsMauves^€500 23:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this seems an utterly trivial cross category. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cross-categorization that does not meet WP:LISTN Spudlace (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Perfect example of a cross-categorization specifically mentioned at WP:NOTDIRECTORY. - Aoidh (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Shirin, Dezful[edit]

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

Previously deleted by PROD because it has the name of a well (چه‌, or chah, means well in Persian). The new source in this version by a different user does not help us, as it is a database search for the 2015 Iranian census, and this place name failed WP:V. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I translated the article from Perisan Wikipedia. User:Moondragon21 05:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, since we don't have a reliable source confirming the existence of the subject. The Iranian census is not suitable for this purpose because it includes many entries which are not populated places. The Persian Wikipedia version is also referenced only to the Iranian census. Hut 8.5 17:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per every other discussion of these Iranian abadi. Specifically the Iranian census counts people according to whether they live near a reference point, and the reference point can be literally anything. In this case, the reference point is apparently a well. This means it fails WP:Geoland#1 as it is not a legally-recognised populated place, but instead just a well.

User:Moondragon21 - Persian Wikipedia copied a whole load of bad articles from English Wikipedia. Many of them are even cited directly to English Wikipedia. It is best not to try to copy articles directly from Persian Wikipedia unless you are sure they have good sourcing and is about something notable. FOARP (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All fair points. I will redirect to Dezful instead. User:Moondragon21 09:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other than WP:CHEAP, what is the meaningful reason to redirect to Dezful? The subject is not mentioned there, nor is there any meaningful information (because there's none available) there. Imagine creating a redirect that is just "Simon's Well, New York City" that redirects to New York City. Frankly I oppose redirection in these cases as basically pointless. FOARP (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, there's no point in redirecting unless the target article actually mentions the subject. And a merge would be a bad idea given the lack of sources to confirm the subject's existence. Hut 8.5 13:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Split. two different personalities at least one of which is potentially notable Less Unless (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alonso_de_Solís[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Alonso de Solís

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

The article conflates biographical information about two different individuals with the same name, neither of whom were significant historical figures. DavoLWS (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Spain, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Texas. Curbon7 (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Split: The Alonso de Solis who was on the Narvaez expedition could be notable. This source names him as Cabeza de Vaca's right-hand man, and he's mentioned quite frequently in various sources, indicating some significance. The other one seems to be notable as the colonial governor of Spanish Florida via WP:NPOL. As such, I think the best course of action is to split the article. Curbon7 (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Split per above.Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Split: I am the creator of the article. It's been a while since I published on Wikipedia but I agree with the split of the article, if they are two different Alonso Solis.--Isinbill (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laughery Switch, Indiana[edit]

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

I found one source that claimed this was a town, but given the context I am inclined to discount this as unreliable, as it appears to be assuming that every point on the line was a town. After that, it took a bit of searching to explain the total lack of anything on the topos other than the recently added name, but I eventually located someone's blogspot post on the line which explained that this section of the Ohio and Mississippi Railway was rerouted in 1900, so that the state road through the area was laid down over the prior roadbed. There also was some underground railroad activity in the area. All that said, I could find nothing out about this spot other than it was there on the railroad, and I really don't even have that good a confirmation of that. Mangoe (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete found a couple claims that this was platted in the 1850s. Nothing actually in-depth about this place though, even on newspapers.com. Hog Farm _Talk 13:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Suonii180 (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edy[edit]

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

I am unable to locate any references that meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability, in any language. The article has been tagged since 2008, over 14 years ago, and still has no references. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator One good reference has been uncovered and based on the other references, it is likely that other references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability exist. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Japan. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I would suggest redirecting to Rakuten, the company that makes this product, but it is not mentioned in the article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources that exist for the subject. Putting "Edyカード" into Google News leads to literally over a thousand results, and "楽天Edy" nearly 10,000. Searching on Google Books for "Edy BitWallet" and "Edy Sony" also has a lot of results. In any case, the subject has had sustained coverage from reliable sources for over two decades, and it seems fairly important despite the poor state of the English article - For reference, Edy was the earliest E-commerce payment system in Japan (doi:10.14992/00011829), and held the largest market share for contactless payments in 2020 (ITMedia 2020). Some more early sources: IT Media 2002, RBB Today 2003 (passing mention), K-Tai Watch 2004, Fujitsu 2004, Famitsu 2005 (though I suppose this one's just a simple tie-in for a game), Ascii.jp 2007. ArcticSeeress (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for retrieving the links but I can't see any of those sources meeting NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Can you link to the best WP:THREE? NCORP criteria has specific requirements for *each* references as per WP:SIRS which takes it above sustained coverage from reliable sources as you mention.

Since the topic is a company/organization, NCORP criteria requires multiple references that discuss the *company* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".

"Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

Looking at the references and links you've provided, they are mostly regurgitated PR/Announcements or passing mentions. ITMedia 2020 produce survey results and the topic company gets a mention-in-passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. IT Media 2002 is based on an announcement, RBB Today 2003 is a passing mention, K-Tai Watch 2004 is totally based on an announcement, Fujitsu 2004 is a case study by Fijitse on BitWallet (their company) who are partners with the topic company therefore not unaffiliated, fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH, Famitsu 2005 a tie-in and a mere mention-in-passing fails CORPDEPTH, Ascii.jp 2007 is a Q&A based tutorial on Bitwallet's product, no in-depth info on the company, fails CORPDEPTH. Finally, the report on the spread of electronic money mentions the topic company but does not provide sufficient in-depth information about the company and fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added five references to the article (though I haven't added all the information of the first one). I've also dug up a some more that I'll maybe get around to adding at some other point:

ケータイ Watch 2004, IT Media 2004, and several more I can't link (only accessible through Gale)

In any case, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the references above, and the ones I've added to the article. As I see it, this is more than enough to establish notability. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second reference is based entirely on an interview with the executive officer of Bitwallet so fails ORGIND. The first reference might not meet WP:RS threshold as it has a disclaimer about the contents. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the second source isn't decisive when it comes to notability. As for ケータイ Watch, they seem to have an editorial board, but then again, the articles I've linked are nearly twenty years old, so their editorial practices aren't entirely transparent. In any case, the disclaimer itself seems rather vague, and doesn't necessarily have to mean anything about the reliability of the content. Another source I've used in the article comes from this website, so if you still think they are potentially unreliable, I could find something to replace them.

Anyway, do you believe the sources currently used in the article fulfil WP:GNG or WP:NCORP? If not, I could certainly find more. ArcticSeeress (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add my own input on the first reference, that seems to be a generic CYA disclaimer, NHK is a WP:RS and also has a similar disclaimer. @ArcticSeeress:, if the Gale links are better than the ones you currently have, can you post them? Wikipedia editors have access to WP:Gale as part of the Wikipedia Library. Jumpytoo Talk 06:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say they're particularly better, but here: JCNN 2005, Asia Pulse 2011, Yomiuri Shimbun 2005, Card Technology 2002, Asia Pulse 2007. I wasn't sure if linking them would work, but they seem to open just fine in private browsing windows as well. There are a lot more that mention it in passing, but these should be fine. ArcticSeeress (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some papers that I came across (though the author of the first is closely affiliated with the product): Akamon Business Review 2008 & Nihon University GSSC journal 2002. ArcticSeeress (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ArcticSeeress, the second paper is good. Based on that and the other links, I'll withdraw the nomination as it is likely that sufficient sources exist to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'll come back to this article sometime in the future, as it's in pretty shoddy shape right now. ArcticSeeress (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator One good reference has been uncovered and based on the other references, it is likely that other references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability exist. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/mea culpa I briefly closed this as withdrawn but realize I should not have per WP:BADNAC. Sincere apologies! - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC) (non-admin unclose)[reply]
- Presidentman, if you withdraw your Delete !vote, the you can close it or I can close it as the nominator.... HighKing⁺⁺ 16:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources brought up above, it is a significant service. Fulmard (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the sources found by Arctic. Thanks for the hard work on trying to save this. Jumpytoo Talk 05:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Domnitor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespan timeline of Domnitors of Romania[edit]

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

Merge with Domnitor, then delete: I fail to see why this couldn't be integrated into the Domnitor article so that readers interested in the Romanian rulers can also learn about their lifespan on the same page. Also, this page is nearly unlinked to. Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Romania. NotReallySoroka (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
merge and delete per above. The only reason this needs to be discussed is for the deletion of the resulting redirect; the merge itself is obvious, assuming one likes such graphics. Mangoe (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
merge and delete per nominator. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support last suggestion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Malta International Football Tournament#Malta Women's Tournament. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Malta International Women's Football Tournament[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malta. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malta International Football Tournament#Malta Women's Tournament - does not merit a separate article. Giant Snowman 19:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus seems to keep this article even though there is room for improvement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gigi Chao[edit]

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

This article was a redirect to the father's article for many years. Recently, an editor removed the redirect and wrote a short article. The article was tagged for WP:A7, which I declined but at the same time I felt there wasn't enough notability for a standalone article, so I reinstated the redirect. The editor in favor of an article reverted. Although it may not qualify as an A7, the article fails WP:GNG. The article is mainly about a fight between a father and daughter over her sexuality, and because of the wealth and notoriety of the father attracts some coverage in the media. Is that enough? I don't think so, but the community will decide. Some of the language, BTW, in the short article is over-the-top. Bbb23 (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sexuality and gender, and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She seems notable due to the BBC coverage, which seems to satisfy WP:GNG. I agree that it is probably wealth that made her notable, but that doesn't stop her being notable. I think our role here is less about judgement why subjects are notable and more about focus on if people are notable. CT55555 (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work, but there are clearly sources covering her independent of her father: [25], [26], [27]. I also found mentions of the organization she founded. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just about meets WP:GNG. Not a case of WP:BLP1E. Also WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Though almost every source I've seen so far does mention her father. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - coverage is significant and meets GNG MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she's like really famous. many media pieces on her. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Battle of Dombås. Unfortunately, most of the keep arguments are more in hope then citation and analysis of sources so the best weighting of the policybased arguments goes with merge. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivar Navelsaker[edit]

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

I'm not seeing anything that especially distinguishes him from the rest of the officers in World War II. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He appears to have been included in a Norwegian "Who's Who", so assuming it is a reputable one, then there may well be significantly more to found about him in Norwegian. It might help if someone who knows something about Norwegian sources could chime in here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At worst, merge to battle of Dombås. Geschichte (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the proviso that I can’t read Norwegian. He also had an entry in the Norwegian Who Was Who? and I see multiple other references in many Google books. Mccapra (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Well this is either Keep or Merge to battle of Dombås; the Norwegian and Danish sources (I've added another) think him worth a mention (usually for one paragraph) for his part in the battle, and even if Norway has a small population, getting an entry in their Who's Who is significant. He does seem to be recorded only for the one event - not very surprising as he was taken prisoner - so his notability is borderline, and a merge to the battle article would probably be best. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given that he was a military officer and there's some available information regarding him, I see no reason to delete this, the merge option is possible but the article seems passable to me. N1TH Music (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As a BLP we are better starting afresh, especially if the subject espouses fringe views so happy to share the sourcing with anyone wanting to create the book article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Gmirkin[edit]

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

The only sources other than one interview and Gmirkin's works themselves are a bunch of negative reviews of the latter (Anthonioz 2017, Van Seters 2007, Wood 2008). Especially given the fact that Russell Gmirkin's theories are WP:FRINGE, this absence of secondary sourcing is intolerable.

In cases like this, we would at least need one or two sources covering the reception of his views in general to be able to characterize them without ourselves engaging in analysis of Gmirkin's work or the reviews of it. Searching Google News I only found this press release, which I take to be a bad sign. He obviously also fails WP:NACADEMIC. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been brought to the attention of editors at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not sure what the nominator means by "obviously also fails WP:NACADEMIC" - I think he passes it on #1: "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline". Even if people disagree with him, they still take his thesis seriously (which is what "impact" means). This is demonstrated by GS citations: Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus has 136 citations listed, which is very impressive for this field (compare Bart D. Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? which has 167). I'm really not sure why the nom considers the present state of the article intolerable: looking at published book reviews is a normal way of evaluating reception. StAnselm (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability (academics) explicitly states that GS includes sources that are not peer-reviewed and that the number of citations found there can sometimes be significantly more than the number of actual citations from truly reliable scholarly material. I know this to be true from personal experience, since GS citations for my own academic work are roughly triple the amount of actual citations in RS. Also consider that citations give us nothing to work with to write an article. A more important question is, are there substantial reviews that explicitly tell us something about reception without engaging in OR? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In this field, I'd expect influence to be judged more by the presence of book reviews than by citation counts. I'd argue that this review of Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible is too superficial to count, being a summary (in practically "listicle" form) without analysis. There is what at first looked like substantial commentary in this article, but on closer inspection, it appears to be lifted from Wikipedia. Compare, for example, To be sure, Gmirkin has been criticised from various quarters. Van Seters (2007) criticised Gmirkin’s work in a 2007 book review, arguing that Berossus and Genesis is based on a straw man fallacy by attacking the documentary hypothesis without seriously addressing more recent theories of Pentateuchal origins. with John Van Seters criticized Gmirkin's work in a 2007 book review, arguing that Berossus and Genesis engages in a straw man fallacy by attacking the documentary hypothesis without seriously addressing more recent theories of Pentateuchal origins. So, that's no good. XOR'easter (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misreading the book review. The link is not full access, and only shows a snippet. The actual review is across three pages. St Anselm (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have library access to the whole thing. It's spread across three pages, but most of it is basically a Table of Contents. Part III discusses ‘Greek and Ancient Near Eastern law collections’. It addresses the following topics: (a) Ancient Near East law collection; (b) Comparison with biblical law collections... There's a two-sentence paragraph at the end which boils down to Further research is needed. I don't think that qualifies as the kind of in-depth, systematic examination that allows a book review to qualify as substantial commentary. We regard authors as passing the wiki-notability guideline for book writers if they have multiple books that received multiple reviews apiece, typically; in order for that to be a viable standard, the reviews in question need to have weight. I'm not weighing in with an overall judgment yet, just saying that that particular review doesn't cut the mustard, in my personal view. XOR'easter (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. My mistake. St Anselm (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! And feel free to disagree, of course. I'm sure I've developed some idiosyncratic opinions after 5+ years of these things. :-) XOR'easter (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two Questions - First, do we really evaluate the notability of academics here by looking at citation counts or the existence of book reviews? Because if that is enough, than any semi-accomplished academic would in fact be wiki-notable. Forget about named professorships, academic awards, membership of prestigious scholarly societies, or WP:SIGCOV in non-academic sources: they're cited by their peers (even if only to reject their thesis, which can significantly boost citation counts) and book reviews exist, so they are notable? I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that (though we would end up with an enormous amount of articles on third-rank scholars), but it would be a lot easier then if WP:NACADEMIC explicitly stated it.
A second question I have about this is, are we then supposed to write articles purely based on book reviews? It seems to me that book reviews are a type of primary sources (they are secondary in relation to the individual work they review, but primary in relation to the reception of the author's work as a whole), and that to evaluate them to say something about the author in general would constitute a type of original research. For example, most of an author's theses may be rejected by the academic community at large, or on the contrary very well received, but no individual review would state such a thing, since they are supposed to be strictly about one reviewer's evaluation of one specific reviewed work. Book reviews especially tend to be extremely circumspect about negative evaluations, which creates an additional problem for fringe theories. What source are we to use, also in Gmirkin's case, to qualify an author's work as largely rejected? Can we add to the lead that Gmirkin's theories are largely rejected by the academic community, only citing the book reviews? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we really do evaluate academics for wiki-notability based on citation profiles and the existence of book reviews, among the other criteria that the guideline in question lays out. But they have to have a sufficient record to stand out above their field. This works surprisingly well — better, one might say, in practice than in principle — and filters out the "semi-accomplished". Why, I'm "semi-accomplished" in my academic career myself, and I'd fail here.
  There is a legitimate quandary regarding what to do with biographies where all the available documentation is dismissive, disparaging, or otherwise negative. This has happened before with academics on the fringe, who may be completely unremarkable in their own field but known for crankish statements outside of it (an engineer endorsing creationism, say, or a mathematician going in for climate-change denial). Sometimes the best thing to do is just not to have an article. XOR'easter (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, I should have read that more thoroughly the first time around. As usual, WP notability guidelines turn out to be more permissive than I suspected, as well as than what I would personally like (I'm a non-notable 'semi-accomplished' academic too, btw, that was a poor way to state it). The second question remains though: can we use the reviews to make a broad statement about reception in the lead? I believe that if we can't make such a statement somehow, we shouldn't have an article. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:PROF does get used to argue for notability, I have seen many occasions where this has gone the other way. In this case, the person is notable for one idea, it seems to me. I don't see a need to have a standalone biography and certainly sourcing it entirely to primary sources is going to cause some problems. Wikipedia works on consensus and I've lately seen some rumblings that the WP:PROF consensus may not be as solid as it once was. I am more inclined towards your approach on the matter, TBH. jps (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the much-vaunted GNG, any paper that has had follow-up in two or three other papers by different authors is technically "notable". I shudder to think of thousands of mini-articles being created on that basis, and then merged to create biographies of their lead authors... Our wiki-notability guidelines for academics are in practice a higher bar than the alternative. As to whether we can make a summary statement based on book reviews, I think we could at least say "His work has been criticized for X, Y, and Z" — merely giving a summary, rather than drawing the conclusion that his work is completely or largely rejected. But, on the other hand, there's so little to go on that I'm not convinced the wiki-notability standard for academics or authors is met. XOR'easter (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mere follow-up or even reviews are not necessarily significant coverage. WP:GNG requires this, stating specifically so that no original research is needed to extract the content. This seems to be precisely what's missing here. A list of particular criticisms is not enough, we must be able to make a broad analytic statement. If doing that would be deemed OR, the subject is not notable in my view. But maybe we can; hopefully other !voters will weigh in. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any wiki-notability guideline requires the existence of a definitive take on a person's work, or a meta-analysis of the original reviews. The absence of such an evaluation in a reliable source rules out our inventing one, of course, but in my view that absence isn't what makes the case for this article dubious. Right now, I'm in a "weak delete" mood, as I don't think the bar for academics publishing in book-oriented fields is quite met. XOR'easter (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, possibly, refactor to an article about the Berossus and Genesis book. I was unable to substantiate a case that the subject's work has been particularly influential; beyond that one book, it hasn't even been significantly commented upon. One way or another, the wiki-notability guidelines for scholars and for authors ask for a noteworthy body of work — an accomplished career, rather than a single accomplishment. I don't think that standard is met here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because a person has an idea that has gained notice does not mean the person themself is necessarily notable. We are no longer bound to the Great Man theory of ideas. jps (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the community consensus expressed in Wikipedia:Notability (academics) indicates otherwise. St Anselm (talk) 19:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is tension. I believe that this case illustrates why WP:NOTINHERITED should win. jps (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this is an edge case that demonstrates very little about general principles. XOR'easter (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fringe nature of his research is irrelevant if we have enough neutral sources to describe it neutrally. I found multiple reliably-published book reviews for more than one book, Berossus and Genesis [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] and Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible [35] [36], enough to convince me of a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The first of those two reviews for Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible is the one that struck (and still strikes) me as basically a Table of Contents with no substantial commentary. Several reviews for one book but only one that I can honestly count for another inclines me to say we should have an article on that first book rather than for the author. XOR'easter (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and refactor to Berossus and Genesis. At this stage, sources do not support that WP:NAUTHOR is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and refactor to Berossus and Genesis. The person of Gmirkin himself is not a notable one, while the only book written by him which has achieved some notability is Berossus and Genesis. I have checked all the other scholarly works and books [37][38] he has written and what I have found is that said works contain WP:FRINGE theories (he even publishes for the Journal of Higher Criticism, which I take to be a bad sign) and/or have not received any significant scholarly (or media) attention.--Potatín5 (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Alvord[edit]

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

No evidence found of WP:Notability. Many sources in article, but vast majority are not independent (sites of the sport organisations, most of them passing mentions anyway), and the others are a blog, and passing mentions in race results. No substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources could be found. Fram (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and Pennsylvania. Fram (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a reference to an article on James Alvord from Cyclingnews - a reliable, independent source, which includes quotes from Alvord. Fanofcycling (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Narrowly delete. Almost good enough, just need one more source. Abeg92contribs 23:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Why was this article deleted which included good results from USA Cycling & UCI amongst others, and more importantly a link to a recent article from a very reputable source Cyclingnews, and older articles from Morning Call? Especially when other track cyclists have pages that don't have the same amount of info like Hamish Turnbull or James Mellen are accepted and published. Fanofcycling (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Similar articles existing doesn't mean this article merits inclusion, and if need be the others can too be discussed. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 10:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Venezuela[edit]

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

This list is so vastly incomplete and weighted toward one or two states that it serves no encyclopedic purpose. Its eswiki equivalent, es:Anexo:Colegios en Venezuela, has just one mainspace link.

Note that the term "colegio" in Spanish has the specific meaning, often, of a private school—if this were to be a desirable list to keep, it should be "List of private schools in Venezuela". However, even that scope is unbearably large for a list. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Lists, and Venezuela. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lists for Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Guyana and Paraguay exist too, although in some cases they only include in the list entries that already have their own article. WP:SCH might also be important to consider here, although I'm just noticiing that the essay is now a failed proposal. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are alternatives to improve the article before deletion, such as excluding non-notable schools, while keeping those that have an article. As shown above, the are other lists that have a similar format, and this one can follow it while complying with WP:NOT. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure we can exclude it simply because it's a long list; we have Lists_of_schools_in_England which is a list-of-lists covering, as the label on tin suggests, every school in England, no matter how tiny and non-notable (I'm not entirely sure this is right or useful). If there is no hope of the Venezuelan list ever being properly complete, in the sense of the English list, then I would suggest pruning it down to Venezuelan schools that have their own articles, and renaming it "List of notable schools in Venezuela". Elemimele (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: List of mainly non-notable schools (See: NSCHOOL). Fails Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of companies and organizations (If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs)
Delete indiscriminate list. Lightburst (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate list, sources don't support that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will Clark (actor)[edit]

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

Lacks significant, independent coverage 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and Sexuality and gender. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AVN, a green-level RS at RSP, covered him in this article where they wrote the subject had raised over $500,000 for LGBT charities , and then an additional $100k for NYC LGBT nonprofits by 2009. They also wrote about when Clark was the subject of a spotlight series honoring him for his work in the gay adult industry (here). Edge Media Network called him "once a big name in the industry" and said he won a Grabby Award for Performer of the Year Award with Cole Tucker along with "a host of other awards" (here). Other awards have included awards from the Gay/Lesbian Anti-Violence Project, United for the Ride, and New York's Imperial Court (here). The latter source from Windy City Times also said by 2014, Clark had raised "millions" for LGBT charities. His views were included in Shira Tarrant's book New Views on Pornography (here). In his book Award-Winning Men: Up Close and Personal with Gay Honorees, Ed Karvoski covers Clark in a three-page biography (here). He covered an issue of The Advocate (here). The Advocate also called him an "adult video luminary" and Out called him a "porn veteran" (snippets here). --Kbabej (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he is pretty famous being in the hall of fame. And as Kbabej writes he is covered in media and books. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Community Scholars, Inc.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to establish notability; references are mostly web archived links to first-party sources. Article subject of a previous successful AfD in 2007; subsequently recreated in 2010. It Is Me Here (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Texas. It Is Me Here (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources are primary in nature (school board meeting minutes? seriously?) and what remains is weak local coverage that is insufficient to clear the notability threshold. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it doesn't sufficiently pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone is interested in working on this in draftspace, I will be happy to provide a copy. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Watling Academy[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Sources are all routine local coverage for a secondary school. MB 00:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and England. MB 00:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nom. Sources are unlikely to exist for a school that has only existed for two years. Scorpions13256 (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This school is on target to have 1,700 pupils within four years and become the largest in the Borough of Milton Keynes. While it may well be true that it does not quite meet GNG today, there can be no doubt that it will become so. The nomination is precipitate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the above is such a common fallacious argument that we have an essay to respond to it - TOOSOON. 174.212.212.53 (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep independently sourced, clearly a significant institution within the Milton Keynes area. This reductionist attitude only serves to diminish Wikipedia, not expand it...Bleaney (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Currently, except for the one MKFM source that could easily be replaced sometime in the future, there are nearly as many reliable sources as in the articles for The Radcliffe School and Ousedale School (two other local schools), and the missing objectives of the WP:GNG will almost certainly be fulfilled, and is likely to be soon due to the fact that 2 years have already passed, and the population of this area of MK is growing rapidly, and we should expect the school to follow suit. For the reasons above, and for consistency with secondary schools across the Borough of Milton Keynes, IMO there is absolutely no practical reason as to why this article should be removed now, only for it likely to be reinstated in the near or not-to-distant future, and as others have mentioned, removing this article from Wikipedia will do nothing but remove potentially useful information (however small it may be for a time), and so it defeats the purpose of this platform which is, per WP:About, a source of information on all branches of knowledge. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Referring to the state of other articles is not a valid reason to keep as WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. No matter how likely something is doesn't mean it's not WP:TOOSOON as per WP:CRYSTAL. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources in this article don't seem to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NORG to establish the notability of the school at this time. (Note that the future potential notability of the school is irrelevant in determining whether this article should exist today. If the school becomes notable in the future, the article can be easily restored.) Per WP:AUD (a sub-section on WP:NORG), "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." That requirement has clearly not been satisifed here. Of the three sources in the article currently:
1. Relatively significant coverage of the school, but in a very local publication. Additionally, this reads like a press release that was probably prepared by the Milton Keynes Council. You can find very similar press releases published in other places about other schools in the area that were built by Milton Keynes Council over the years, like these: [39][40][41][42]. Note the same structure in each article, with extended quotes by various staff, followed by the same tag-line at the end of each article: "Milton Keynes Council has committed to ensuring there is a good school place ready for every child."
2. Another press release published on the website of a local radio station. The same extended quote structure has been employed.
3. Broken link to a page on www.milton-keynes.gov.uk. It doesn't matter what the link was, because it would have been a primary source anyway, which is ineligible to be used for the purposes of establishing notability.

—⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on above policy arguments and source review. This is basically a brand new high school in England. No inherent notability based on policy, taking into consideration the school's size and enrollment, so we have to look at the sources. Scottywong analyzed the current sourcing and showed it to be lacking in volume and scope. I did a quick Google search to try to supplement the current sources and could find little of import. To salvage some of this info, I just added a line to the schools section in Milton Keynes#Education saying Watling Academy, completed in 2021, is the largest secondary school in Milton Keynes., using this [[43]] to source it. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - my edit was just reverted because the only source I could find spoke of the future, and not the present. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DRAFTIFY as a compromise. Not notable per WP:NSCHOOL, could become in the future. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify is just kicking the can down the road. If it's not notable it should be deleted and can be recovered by an admin if need be. Unattended drafts get deleted after 6 months anyway. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per source analysis by ScottyWong⁠. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the citations in the article are just routine news from local sources. Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 15:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as suggested, seems a good compromise. I don't find much for notability, but it could happen soon enough. Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify seems reasonable. It's not worth trying to summarise data when there's only one data-source to summarise (all the existing citations obviously come from the same press release) - our readers might just as well read the original. Nothing to write about now, but it will probably become notable in the future. Elemimele (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG or WP:NORG at the moment. Maybe somewhere in the future but now it is just routine covering. Being new or existing does not make a school notable The Banner talk 18:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though WP:ORG says at the very top of the guideline, The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, (italics mine) the article still needs to meet GNG. The GNG guideline, WP:SUSTAINED, says "Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time." Even after I added a few facts and sources, I don't find the sustained criterion to be met, and it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Historical buildings and structures of Yarmouth, Maine. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Reuben Prince House[edit]

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

Total lack of notability (or is it known under a different name?). I couldn't find better sources, and of the sources currently in the article, source 2, 3, 4 and 6 don't even mention the house. 1 and 5 is the same source used twice, and I can't find a reference to the house in it either (without a page number it's hard to be sure). Fram (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and Maine. Fram (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New source [44] doesn't give any notability either. Fram (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The US Congressional Biographical Directory gives no evidence for a Congressman named Harlan Prince, as the article suggests. The article about Prince himself was created only three days ago. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found a copy of the source mentioned in the biography. It appears he was a state representative, not Congressman. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Historical buildings and structures of Yarmouth, Maine. The home itself does not meet notability guidelines for an independent article but, taken as a whole, it is one of the historic buildings in the town.--User:Namiba 19:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Historical buildings and structures of Yarmouth, Maine, for which this suits the bill completely.Djflem (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Historical buildings and structures of Yarmouth, Maine. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support that merger -- This is grand house, but the named architect only "did some work on" it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirecting isn't viable if the term is fabricated, and the argument that it is hasn't been rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

McMahon-Levesque Era[edit]

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

Seems way premature or lacks notability. This "era", which started two weeks ago, has no Google News sources (this is the only one, and it is from 2014!), and very few hits in general. We have [https://sportsobsessive.com/wrestling/wrestling-shows/weekly-tv/monday-night-raw-review-mcmahon-levesque-era-begins-at-msg/ this, and, er, that's it[45]. Fram (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Wrestling, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete As with a lot of these "eras" it seems to largely be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. The insistence of wrestling fans to categorise everything into eras is often unencyclopedic and only works if there is widespread acceptance that this is, in fact, a defined period of wrestling. In this instance it's not (yet), and is derived by off-handed descriptions of the recent changes in WWE rather than genuine notability. — Czello 10:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Multiple sources have cited the begining of a new era in the WWE. Here is just one of many WP:RS which includes an ESPN interviews from several top stars such as Becky Lynch and more that a New Era begun with the change in ownership: [46]. Just one example, there are many other reliable sources beside it used in that article. In July 22, 2008 it was said that the WWE begun PG Era due to simple change in tv ratings from TV 14 to TV PG despite WWE having been PG before 1997. At that time I was an unregistered editor, I did not register until 2019 but I saw that Wikipedia supported the then so called pg era without any sources, when it was justa fan insult but WWE accepted it much later. Now tehre is a literal change in ownership and activities in WWE and multiple sources citing that a new era begun on WWE. So a strong keep from me due to the massive changes and the large amount of well established WP:RS that supports a new era in the WWE which begun on July 22, 2022. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that this falls under the criteria WP:TOOSOON and I even mentioed this to the article writer draft talk page. there are already many WP:RS citing this new era but it would have been better to wait a bit, guess they are just too impatient, but there is no denying that a new era begun on July 22, 2022 and there are multiple WP:RS supporting it.. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, not a single one of the sources that I can see uses the phrase "McMahon-Levesque Era". There's no denying that changes have taken place within the company, but that's why we have History of WWE - I agree with OP that notability has not been established that this 2 week old period deserves its own article. We most likely won't even know that for years. This article is a classic case of WP:SYNTH. — Czello 12:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Czello yeah its a bit too ealy, and the specific name McMahon-Levesque Era isn't stated but there are many WP:PW/RS besides the EPSPN source like these that agrees and also explicitly says new era already begun: [47], [48] and ths mainly happens with Stephanie McMahon and Triple H (Paul Michael Levesque) now being in charge of the company which the sources do mention, however the fact taht its too early to have its own article I agree with you. I am still keeping keep for now but ayway am sure a proper consensus will be reached.Dilbaggg (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You linked the same source twice there; I assume one was intended to be the Becky Lynch one from above. Nonetheless, this doesn't sound like a "strong keep" to me, as you concede that it's WP:TOOSOON; it seems closer to a "weak keep". — Czello 12:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake, this is the other source i wanted to add [49] anyway good day [[Czello]] bro. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to WWE#History. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Czello that these "eras" have a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH going on... Have any reliable sources even used the name "McMahon-Levesque Era"? While many changes are going on in WWE right now, I would actually recommend that these be detailed in an article for the Retirement of Vince McMahon. High quality sources have been covering the events leading up to that for months. The changes in the on-screen presentation are far less noteworthy and it's WP:TOOSOON for a separate article; the little that we have to go on can be detailed at WWE#History.LM2000 (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly some eras of WWF/E are notable and well established, but an "era" that began a week ago certainly isn't!★Trekker (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Kazanstyle (talk) 08:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of WWE as not notable enough for a standalone article, not yet. Fixer88 (talk) 05:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely fabricated name. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or WP:OR. Fails notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:05, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MAP (health technology and life science)[edit]

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

No actual evidence of notability for the Australian company MAP Biotech. I couldn't find good independent sources about them (searching for "MAP Biotech" or for "MAP" "Bloch-Jorgensen"). Fram (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Medicine, and Australia. Fram (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mental health is one of the biggest scourges of modern society. It is encumbered upon all of us to disseminate information from reliable sources to the vulnerable. In terms of notability, please refer to ^[1]

References

^ https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/resilience-why-you-need-it-and-how-to-boost-it/dqn0pnwtb

Comment That article fails as a reliable source since it is marked as an advertisement.

WAAPHC (talk) 02:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs and the source you provided is a passing mention. I likewise cannot find sources that meet the particularly stringent sourcing requirements for companies. Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with 'righting wrongs' - The article 'reports what is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion'. MAP discovered Centeredness Theory and the significant, independent, reliable, and secondary sources used show that this has had a demonstrable effect on science.WAAPHC (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written like an advertisement, fails our standards both for corporations and for medical topics. Kill it with fire. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Part of a promotional walled garden built around Zephyr Bloch-Jorgensen. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. Gusfriend (talk) 10:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails our criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional and with no evidence (in our article or in searches) of passing WP:NCORP. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am more persuaded by the delete arguments around the necessity of independent sourcing for a BLP then keep arguments that articles that are basically interviews are independent. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jehn Joyner[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found these sources which show he is notable in Northern Mariana Islands: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. In addition, he is a young, already internationally capped player (4th most capped in his country) with an ongoing career who helped Northern Mariana Islands youth team beat Macau 2-1 their first international win at any level , one of few Northern Mariana Islands players to ever play abroad, and is mentioned in countless match reports and videos. I feel like the nominator specifically tries to delete only football articles en masse for no reason. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I write this another 30 are probably deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand what WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV is? I doubt it. The second article is not independent of the subject, as it primarily relies on quotes from the subject. #3 and #4 are clearly not significant coverage of the person. Both articles discuss the subject for less than 100 words, which means it fails the WP:100 words criteria. The fifth source mentions the subject's name four times, all in a trivial manner. The sixth source mentions the subject once, to introduce a quote, which of course is not independent of the subject. The seventh source mentions the source three times, all trivial mentions of the subject such as "Joyner provided the go-ahead point in the 53rd minute". Please stop spamming these AFD discussions with links that clearly do not demonstrate GNG. It is distruptive. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither WP:SIGCOV or WP:INDEPENDENT says newspaper interviews (or any interviews for that matter) make the article not independent of the subject. Nfitz (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Literally WP:SIGCOV says "Independent of the subject". An interview with the subject is not independent of the subject lol. I don't know how else to put it, but clearly you are not understanding what WP:INDEPNDENT is. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Go back and read it again. There is literally no mention of interviews - let alone articles that partially incorporate interviews in national newspapers. SIGCOV also links to INDPENDENT which also has no mention of interviews, etc. The issue is press releases and their ilk, not interviews by national newspapers. Nfitz (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources 1 and 2 cited above (which were never rebutted by nominator) are by themselves sufficient to get us over GNG, which is sufficient to keep the article regardless of whether the other sources provided also do. Although the sources are not currently cited in the article as allegedly required by NSPORT, GNG does not require that, and if the article meets GNG, it should be kept. Smartyllama (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source 2 as listed on the comment right above yours, is primarily quotes from the subject. This would fail "independent of the subject". One source is not enough to satisfy GNG or SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out the criteria that say articles that include an interview are not "independent of the subject". Nfitz (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is pretty self explanatory. A person giving an interview about themself, is not independent. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's not self-explanatory. It might not be the best reference for a particular questionable fact; but that a national newspaper is publishing articles that include in-depth interviews is meeting GNG. There are no Wikipedia guidelines or policies to support your claim. I asked for you to point out the relevant Wikipedia criteria about interviews, and you only waved your hands, and offered your opinion. Please stop nominating articles on this basis - it is disruptive. Nfitz (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 15:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Source 1 isn't enough. Dougal18 (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Of the sources, the article on him making the USF dean's list is probably the best of the bunch but there isn't a whole lot there once you take away the qoutes from his teacher and parents. The other sources from saipantribune.com are a couple of match reports [50][51] and mention of him winning a student award[52]. But if we treat the first as sigcov, the others don't count towards GNG as multiple publications from the organization is generally regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Of the mvariety.com sources, this one is mostly based on his own words and thus a primary source and the other two are match reports[53][54] have trivial menions of him. Alvaldi (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article about non-notable individual with few sources. Making the Dean's list does not earn someone a Wikipedia article. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the newspaper sources clearly meet GNG. Nominator is falsely claiming that newspaper articles that include interviews are not independent of the subject - despite there being no mention of such criteria in either WP:SIGCOV or WP:INDEPENDENT. Nfitz (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first Saipan Tribune source, announcing he made his college honor roll, is pretty much the definition of "local news hype" and is not remotely encyclopedic. Every student making the Dean's list gets a letter sent home about it, and sometimes their parents send it on to their local newspaper because they are proud of their child -- which is clearly what happened here given the quotes from the father. This is totally routine non-news and doesn't count toward GNG N. The first Marianas Variety source has three non-quote sentences: not remotely SIGCOV N. The second Saipan Tribune ref is more hyperlocal news announcing he won the "TSL Foundation Male Student Athlete of the Month", which can be immediately disregarded per YOUNGATH N. The second Marianas Variety source is a namedrop and two quotes: obviously not SIGCOV N. The third ST source is a routine match recap N. The third MV source is one quote from him N. The fourth ST source is more of the hyperlocal youth coverage excluded by YOUNGATH N. Quotes, whether enclosed in quotation marks or not, and whether explicitly part of an interview or not, cannot contribute to GNG as they are not independent appraisals of the subject (obviously) and are primary. There is no such thing as "the fact he was interviewed shows he's notable" because GNG is met through significant secondary independent published commentary on a subject in multiple RS, not achievements or other non-SIGCOV "evidence" that the subject has been recognized. JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NBASIC (No multiple independent sources where combining demonstrates notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.) and WP:SPORTCRIT. Sources do not provide enough independent significant coverage for much more than a pseudo biography (nothing near "full and balanced") which is a requirement for a BLP. This is just a listing of a team player. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BASIC Lightburst (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. This is a BLP and its insufficient. scope_creep^Talk 04:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I have to discount the one "keep" opinion because it contains personal attacks. There is just not enough substantive discussion here for consensus. Sandstein 09:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cena–Orton rivalry[edit]

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

No indication of notability. As it appears to largely be a plot summary, it fails WP:PLOT. There is only one source which comes close to indicating its importance, which is a primary source from WWE itself (no independent or seconadary sources which are preferred to establish importance) which simply labels it as Cena's top feud in a top 10 list. Again, this fails to establish notability. — Czello 22:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Sports, and Wrestling. — Czello 22:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as I see it this is a topic that potentially could be shown to be notable (same with other wrestling rivalries), but, since Cena and Orton already have articles that cover this topic better there is not really any use for this article as of now. I'd say delete since neither man is more of a primary target for a redirct. ★Trekker (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Cena–Orton rivalry is equivalent to the Federer–Nadal rivalry rivalry in professional wrestling, both tp stars in the WWE with a lengthy acclaimed feud, acknowledged as John Cena (one of the biggest name in wrestling history)'s greatest rivalry per this and many other WP:RS beside this: [55], every line is well sourced so its notable, this is Czello vendetta against me, as his friend User:ItsKesha who has been topic banned from wrestling and is under 1 month GS due to numerous edit wars and content disputte, as proven here Czello crying ver his banning: [56], the duo have a hostory of teaming against other editors including myself as in the John Cena artcile: [57], so yes this is pure biased "meating" and neglecting countless unreliable articles they tartget the one I made which is WP:GTS and also this article is sufficiently sourced and this rivalry is well acknowledged in the world of professional wrestling. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I used to have huge respect for Czello but am shocked by this vendetta and teaming with topic banned user, also there are many many sources besides WWE's own (which is widley accepted WP:PW/RS that cites this feud's greatness: [58] and [59] are just two out of many examples, people can google it to find its extreme notability. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

every line is well sourced so its notable No, this isn't how it works. You need to establish the importance of this feud, and so far no sources do. The one that comes the closest is the first one, which is simply a top 10 list. If you feel that you think any of the sources do establish its notability, please list them. I'm going to ignore the rest of this comment as it's a rather bizarre and conspiratorial violation of WP:AGF. — Czello 21:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You neglected the two sources I pointed above, and I am adding yet another f countless WP:RS like this to the article: [60]. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bleacher Report can only be used for minor statements like match results per WP:PW/RS. Republicworld is not reliable per the same link. I will grant you that Pinkvilla does say it is "arguably" on of the greatest feuds - but this link is nowhere to be found in the article. Would you like to add it? — Czello 11:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Czello bleacher report said a minor statement here, that this is one of the feud that defined a generation, its a reliable WP:RS and even has its own article Bleacher report and PW is under WP:GS so their opinion on RS doesn't apply much at the moment. Anyway they only asked to refrain from pre 2013 sources, the source I gave is 2022, thank you for acknowledging the other one though. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Minor statement" means an undisputed fact like "Orton won this match", not "one of the greatest feuds ever" - which, again, the source doesn't actually say. What statement are you hoping to source with the Bleacher Report link? If you have a definitive source somewhere that Bleacher Report is reliable for more than that, I'll happily concede - but I took your suggestion and looked through the WP:RSN archives and I could find nothing but criticism. Also the pre-2013 comment means this is when it went from "not reliable" to "partially reliable".

I'm happy to add the Pinkvilla link - I know you believe I have some kind of vendetta against you or your articles, but honestly all I want is from this to be better sourced, which Pinkvilla does. — Czello 11:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Czello, thanks for acknowledging, we are fellow editors and we should do our best to make great articles like this, glad you understand how notable this is, best wishes bro. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think, Dilbaggg, you should Wikipedia:Assume good faith from Czello and not a conspiracy against you or your articles. Now, about the article, I think the Orton Cena feud is a good feud, but the article is just a list of results and reports. Worst, it's WP:In-Universe. Ex: "Orton then attacked Cena's father who was sitting at ringside by punt kicking him and seriously injuring him." The article has no mention about real life events. How the feud was received, why the feud it's so important. Just a 411Mania mention and Cesaro comment. But there are no other sources about the feud. If you work on the article, it may be a keep, but this adds nothing to the Cena/Orton articles. Sadly, there are no other wrestling feuds, the Hogan/Andre also has in-universe. The Federer/Nadal article has sections like Analysis, competitive dynamic... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All wrestlers aricles have some plot elements, but this also has many things like how the matches were seen, the praises of the matches, the criticims of the lenght of the feud and also how Cena and Orton views each other irl. Like Nadal-federer in tennis and Messi–Ronaldo rivalry in football this article shows emphasis in oe of the most prominent rivalry in pro wrestling. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dilbaggg: I think Federer–Nadal rivalry is a great example of what this article could be but isn't. The #Analysis section or the #Relationship and competitive dynamic details why their feud was so significant. If that kind of notability were established in this article I'll happily withdraw this deletion nomination. — Czello 12:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there a list of WWE storylines, major events, or some such? The coverage of the topic seems to be limited to trivial pop culture articles at a first glance, but being merged to a list would make sense. TTN (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Auwal Farouk Abdussalam[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF, WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 09:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Individual lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom. Reading Beans (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cleary far WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:NPROF, with minimal citations and a poster prize, and a lack of significant independant coverage to meet WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Harrysson[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG, searching up "Per Harrysson fotbollsspelare" brought up what looked to be some promising sources, but on further inspection they unfortunately all turned out to be either passing mentions or interviews, I could find nothing that would contribute to GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sweden. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andrevan@ 05:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Covered in some detail (at least a page) in the book Boken om 500 AIK:are (content also found online here). Possibly also significant coverage in this news story, and some other newspieces. Borderline notability. – Elisson • T • C • 07:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that book does not appear to be a secondary source. Based on the product page you linked, it looks like it was written by someone who works for AIK Fotboll, and is sold in collaboration with the club. Essentially, it's a primary source written by the club about its own players. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything about Johrén working for AIK, though he has had voluntary (non-profit) assignments. Idrottsförlaget is an independent publisher. Of course for many books of that kind, no matter the publisher independence, they will sell the book in collaboration with the club in question. And just to be clear, I am talking about if the book is an independent source or not—not primary or secondary which is something else, and the book is clearly a secondary or tertiary source (a collection of information from other sources). No matter that, I don't see how Johrén would have a vested interest in Per Harrysson, given the guidelines for WP:IIS. I don't have a strong opinion about this, but for a player with 50 top-division matches (most for one of the larger clubs in Sweden), top-scorer in the second division, and ~25 youth caps at that, sources establishing notability are very likely to exist besides the mentioned book. – Elisson • T • C • 14:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep - sufficient sourcing below and in the above book for the person to be notable. Giant Snowman 17:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per @Johan Elisson:. @GiantSnowman:, These sources show he is notable in Sweden: [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], and [70], among many many sources about him not listed here from skd.se, sydsvenskan.se, skanesport.se, etc. Having been a fully pro Swedish top flight footballer in the 1990s, there is also definitely offline sources about him. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 10. By the time I finish writing this, another ten will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above. /Julle (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Niveditha Gowda[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. The only claim to be notability is appearing on reality shows like Bigg Boss Kannada but as per WP:BIGBROTHER contestants are expected to receive coverage outside of the show which is absent here. --. Ab207 (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, India, and Karnataka. Ab207 (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless a suitable target could be made to redirect. Does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Division by infinity[edit]

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

In former discussions, it was pointed out that moving this article to the main space would require a reliable source, and that it would be difficult to find a reliable source. However, this article has been moved to the main space without any reliable source being added. So I thought about moving this article to draft space, but decided to nominate it for AfD because it has been in draft space for a long time. --SilverMatsu (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. SilverMatsu (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The draft started as a student's class project; I happened across it and took a few stabs at making it into an article but never got quite far enough that I considered it mainspace-ready. I made another round of edits jut now and find it acceptable. It's not great, but good enough that I'm persuaded there's a topic here, and further improvement should happen in main space. XOR'easter (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I went back and added additional sources, cleaned up some of the wording, and linked to the calculus wikibook. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikibooks is not a reliable source, as it is user-generated content: like Wikipedia, basically anybody can add to it. XOR'easter (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Newly added reliable sources satisfy requirements for significant coverage; there's enough to merit a standalone article. ^Complex/_Rational 16:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep. A good enough start. - Nabla (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely not a research topic. But the notability in this case seems clear. Moving it back to the draftspace also seems problematic (as there is no guarantee it will be improved there). —- Taku (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This concept appears marginally notable, but much of the scope of the page seems to duplicate that of Infinitesimal, which is deeply related to this concept. I'm not sure if it's better to merge the two pages (in line with WP:NOPAGE) or to keep them separately. But it's certainly not worthwhile to delete the page and all of its contents given that the subject passes the WP:GNG. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 08:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep as I agree that this is a legitimate article with reliable sources. How useful it is will always be debatable. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Domi and JD Beck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JD Beck[edit]

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

This article is on a 19 year old drummer who is not independently notable. He is one-half of the duo Domi and JD Beck, which is notable. This article should be MERGED with Domi & JD Beck. Only one of the citations is independently about him; the others are about the duo. A BEFORE search shows many hits for the duo, but only social media for JD Beck independently. Fails WP:GNG. It is WP:TOOSOON, in a few years he may be independently notable enough for his own article, but not now. Netherzone (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. Netherzone (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I looked and couldn't find anything about just JD Beck. Merging with Domi and JD Beck is the right thing for this article unless someone finds some more sources. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per Dr vulpes. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Domi and JD Beck as suggested. In fact there is not really much to be merged beyond his couple of gigs before the band formed. Also, it might be worth having a similar discussion about the other member of the band, Domi Louna. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that article should also be merged into the duo's article. Netherzone (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this AfD for Mr. Beck ends without controversy, I can merge both his article and Domi's article to the band without the need for another AfD. We must wait for this one to run its course first. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Jabal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG WP:ANYBIO. Out of 5 references, 4 references are passing mentions only and 1 (ref 2) references is an interview. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 16:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Artists. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 16:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The previous relist seems to have caused this AfD to get lost due to a technical glitch. Procedurally relisting to get it back in the system.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fumiya Kitamura[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGYMNASTICS. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. ––FormalDude talk 04:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGYMNASTICS, but also fails WP:GNG. If sources are found, then please let me know. Fats40boy11 (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not have significant coverage. Fulmard (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gharios[edit]

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

Found one thing about the family, but I'm not sure if that would even pass notability checks (WP:NRVE). Unreferenced for twelve years. Open to merging but I'm not sure what article would be suitable for that, and if this is even relevant to any articles. The saint might be, but I can't find any information at all about them. AkiyamaKana (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons mentioned above. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was created improperly and never transcluded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Procedurally relisting to get it back in the system
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found, none forthcoming. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons mentioned above. I looked again for sources but it was a fruitless search. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've !voted twice here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can’t find anything searching in Latin or Arabic script. Mccapra (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There appears to be some passing mentions in Google Scholar (using the search term of Saint Gurias the Ascetic of Edessa), but it seems to always be brief mentions alongside one or two other martyrs. SWinxy (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Lebanon. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I haven't been able to find a WP:RS confirming the Gharios-Gurias connection, so a redirect is not appropriate.--Jahaza (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rework into an article specifically about the saint. There is significant coverage of him here. On second thought, a new article is probably needed. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 01:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Simon (presenter)[edit]

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even tough there are lack of citations here, as a presenter and a TV personality he meets WP:ENT requirements. Zeddedm (talk) Zeddedm (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do remember him as fairly prominent for his work on BBC children's programmes in the late 1980s, early 1990s so it I wonder if it may be that most sources that could establish notability would not be online? Dunarc (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with above comment, his past work would easily meet notability if it was on tv today with online sources, but without these his sources will all be magazines and news pieces offline. He easily meets notability, he was ubiquitous on childrens tv and even now is a well known personality, qv. most recent episode of Richard Herring’s RHLSTP ep 387 discussion of his work Mramoeba (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As said, he meets WP:ENT requirements but the article does need more independent references. Rillington (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The previous relist seems to have resulted in this AfD getting completely forgotten about due to a technical glitch. Procedurally relisting so it gets back in the system.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though there are not many sources in the article, there are many others that could be added. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 7th Bombardment Squadron. ✗plicit 01:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron[edit]

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

This article conflated two USAF units. It begins with the 7th Photographic Squadron. That unit is covered in the article on the 7th Space Operations Squadron. It continues with the 7th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron, an unrelated unit that is covered in 7th Bombardment Squadron. After deletion it should be a redirect to 7th Bombardment Squadron, the most notable of the designations of the unit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lineagegeek (talk • contribs) 23:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was created improperly and never transcluded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to have SIGCOV. Considering it confuses itself with similarly-named things, I don't feel that a redirect would... be of any utility? I guess? SWinxy (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 7th Bombardment Squadron. A redirect is definitely valuable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Anyone looking for 7th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron would be looking for the unit in Germany, covered in the 7th Bombardment Squadron article. Lineagegeek (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nominator. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 01:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People TV (Atlanta)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final list, seeking more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This source seems to qualify, but unless other sources are found, it isn't enough on its own. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Aklouk[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Jordan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - you don't get to the World Aquatics Championships without achieving an unusual level of talent and this should be taken into account. Deb (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it should not, because such reasoning has been explicitly rejected by global consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Point us to that agreement, please. Deb (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORTS2022 deprecated participation-based presumptions of SIGCOV for sports subguidelines, in addition to removing all presumption of notability. Therefore, merely participating at the World Aquatics Championships does not even indicate that SIGCOV exists, let alone presume notability. On top of that, all athletes must have at least one source of SIGCOV cited in their articles for any of the SSGs or SPORTBASIC presumptions to apply, so even medalling at WAC wouldn't be a valid predictor of further coverage here. JoelleJay (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don’t believe that competing at the championships by itself is sufficient to Mt our notability standards. That would usher in many many hundreds of non notable individuals. Is someone thinks otherwise they can seek to revise our sports specific notability standard. 2603:7000:2143:8500:9CB2:BE71:9E3A:24FF (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of independent sources with in-depth coverage. Also fails WP:SPORTBASIC which states: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." The first three sources are database sources. The fourth (the Jordanian Olympic Committee) is not an independent source and lacks depth (7 words on Aklouk). Cbl62 (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per lack of SIGCOV and my and others' arguments above. JoelleJay (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Religion in Bosnia and Herzegovina. czar 01:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baháʼí Faith in Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

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

The article does not meet the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. The entire article contains content that are just random facts that do not relate specifically to the topic of the Baháʼí faith in Bosnia and Herzegovina at all. According to Baháʼí Faith by country, there are no members of the Baháʼí faith in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The article is bordering on WP:SPIP as the article discusses the Baháʼí faith in general and its persecution in Iran, topics not related to this article. Given these aforementioned factors, coupled with the fact that the sources in the article stem from Baháʼí affiliated organizations rather than other impartial sources, a deletion is warranted. ElderZamzam (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. I've updated some sources. I think for a small article about a small young country much affected by circumstances around it I think it's pretty well documented and framed with the points related to things in the current country. Smkolins (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 99% WP:SPIP. One of the sources here could be used to add 1 or 2 sentences in Religion in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sennalen (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge selectively to Religion in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Reviewing the sources, there really isn't all that much independent coverage from RS and WP:NOPAGE notes that [t]here are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. I don't think the merge needs to be a mere 1-2 sentences; a section with a paragraph would be fully appropriate. But it's quite clear that the topic itself would benefit from being covered in the context of religion in Bosnia more broadly given the relative lack of independent coverage of this faith tradition within the country as a whole. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 08:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content related to Baháʼí Faith in Bosnia and Herzegovina to Religion in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Redirect this title to that merged section. -Vipz (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. This is a soft delete so if reliable sources become available with future success, this article can be restored. I don't think Draftifying is a good idea with a 16 year old article that is unlikely to receive any attention and be deleted in 6 months. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Braun[edit]

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

Put aside the promotional factors of this article, and it appears that the subject fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.

I struggled to find reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject. Only content the subject has written.

Thanks for reviewing and assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Journalism. Missvain (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He hasn't had tremendous success as a playwright, Here are some reviews I found:
- The Hotel Vanya, or A Metaphysical-Paradigm at the End of Everythingness[71][72][73]
- The Living Coast (multimedia production for which he was the writer)[74]
- Savages[75]

--Jahaza (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject might be notable by the comment above (plays being reviewed? similar to authors' notability criteria? but the page needs work to establish criteria of notability. Maybe draftify the page? JamesKH76 (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:48, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rafé Totengco[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD had minimal participation. Fails WP:BIO, lacking indepth coverage LibStar (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, Philippines, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but no prejudice against recreation- I do stand by my conclusions in that AFD, where, whilst I do believe that he could scrape through if someone pulled together sufficient sources (particularly from Filipino language sources), and there is certainly a quantity of mentions and nods over sufficient length of time (and from noteworthy fashion curators such as Valerie Steele) to argue that sources probably exist but are just not very available right now. Mabalu (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond the sources presented by Mabalu in the previous AfD. SBKSPP (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Douma[edit]

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

We don't need a Wiki article for every woman that ever won Miss Canada. It's not a big enough deal for each winner to have a page. DownAndUp (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is coverage from the time of Douma's Miss Canada win and from a 2020 book of her winning Miss Canada (both clearly cited on the page). Coverage over the course of 60-ish years seems to indicate at the very least a minimal passing of notability. This duration, in combination with the coverage of her winning Miss Sydney, overrides any potential WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E (because there's no evidence as to whether she actually is still alive) problems, though that's not an issue that the nominator has raised. Samsmachado (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Swing[edit]

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

We don't need a Wiki article for every woman that ever won Miss Canada. It's not a big enough deal for each winner to have a page. DownAndUp (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BASIC with coverage of her winning Miss Canada, serving as a host for the TV show Just Like Mom, and a consultant for a later show based on Just Like Mom. The filmography section could use citations (it has none), and I noted that issue. DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be enough news coverage from the 1990s, looking in Proquest. Nfitz (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Bad faith nom by a Neelix sock of an article that is clearly passing WP:GNG. I would also mention WP:SNOW Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Teng[edit]

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

We don't need a Wiki article for every woman that ever won Miss Canada. It's not a big enough deal for each winner to have a page. DownAndUp (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has a number of reliable sources, even if many of them are connected to the pageant winner. Also appears to meet WP:NBEAUTY and WP:ANYBIO. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of sources and the article is notable. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Teng appears to be notable per WP:ANYBIO. Article seems to be nominated for deletion as part of a mass deletion of many winners of Miss Canada. Coverage exists for Teng winning Miss Canada as well as regional pageants, so not a BLP1E issue (in case anyone tries to raise that as a concern.) Samsmachado (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as newspapers already referenced in the article so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Elizabeth Tilley[edit]

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

We don't need a Wiki article for every woman that ever won Miss Canada. It's not a big enough deal for each winner to have a page. DownAndUp (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Though the nominator does not raise this issue, this article seems to me to clearly fall under WP:BLP1E. There's no coverage (that I can find) other than of her winning Miss Canada. If coverage exists, which it very well could (given the time of her competition and her alleged top-10 finish) off-line or in archive sources that I can't access, of her competition in Miss Universe 1985, I would change my vote. Samsmachado (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per BLP1E and seeing as how she is a winner of Miss Canada, it may be appropriate to, instead of deleting, redirect to Miss Canada#Winners. Samsmachado (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - searching for "Karen Tilley" generated multiple news articles about her work during her year as Miss Canada. I have added those to the page. With these additions, she has gone past WP:BLP1E and is notable. DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is coverage of her in news clippings in multiple papers covering 1984-85, not just for winning Miss Canada itself, which seems to be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Kereluk[edit]

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

We don't need a Wiki article for every woman that ever won Miss Canada. It's not a big enough deal for each winner to have a page. DownAndUp (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage exists in RS (as reflected in the sourcing of article) of both her career as a tv fitness personality and as a pageant winner. I would guess, based on the fact that most of this happened in the 80s and 90s, that even more sourcing exists outside of what I could find on the internet. But regardless, she seems to meet GNG. This page is one of several Miss Canada winners seemingly being proposed for deletion because of their winning of that particular pageant, regardless of their other achievements/coverage. Samsmachado (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reina Mundial del Banano[edit]

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

Funny to have an article about the Queen of Bananas but fails WP:GNG. DownAndUp (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Beauty pageants, and Ecuador. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reina Hispanoamericana[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not even 1 reference. DownAndUp (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick google search shows many articles on this topic. Most of them are in Spanish but there is sustained coverage of this event. Might be a good idea to contact the author and see if we can send it to draft if they don't have time to fix it right now. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Beauty pageants, Latin America, and South America. Shellwood (talk) 09:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss University Africa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. DownAndUp (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Beauty pageants, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Pacific Islands[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not even 1 reference. DownAndUp (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a lot of news coverage of this event on Google News for example [76] Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Beauty pageants, and Oceania. Shellwood (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Heritage[edit]

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

Long-discontinued pageant that wasn't that notable to begin with. DownAndUp (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Beauty pageants, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Filipina International[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Take one look at those references. DownAndUp (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Beauty pageants, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly sourced. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- An article's being poorly sourced, except in the case of BLPs, is not in and of itself reason to delete. Ovinus (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing an WP:NCORP pass here. There's some coverage of individual winners, but nothing reliable about the organization itself. Nothing in Newspapers.com either. Ovinus (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Arab USA[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. DownAndUp (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Beauty pageants, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conducted a search of Newspapers.com and perused the existing sources. Unless this pageant has some alternate names of which I am ignorant, there's nothing independent. [77] is fairly deep on the organization itself but not independent, and certainly not WP:NORG-level stuff. Ovinus (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Teen Princess[edit]

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

Existed for 8 years in the 60's/70's and has no references... fails WP:GNG. DownAndUp (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Beauty pageants. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. International (pageant)[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant) for similar arguments for why this should be deleted. Basically, fails WP:GNG and also this pageant only ever existed for 8 years of little notability. DownAndUp (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Beauty pageants, and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:23, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism International[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Excessively bloated article with all sorts of tables to make it seem important and fatigue a reader, until you take a step back and realize that references fail WP:GNG. DownAndUp (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Beauty pageants, and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Muslimah[edit]

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

Pageant hasn't been held in years. Article is a mess with claiming winners of future years, unless there's something I don't know about the Muslim calendar saying we're past 2025. Fails WP:GNG. DownAndUp (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Beauty pageants, Islam, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 09:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teen Supranational Pageant[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. DownAndUp (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Beauty pageants, and Ecuador. Shellwood (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teen Africa[edit]

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

Pageant that existed in 2014-2017 and has been defunct since. Fails WP:GNG. DownAndUp (talk) 00:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Beauty pageants, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant): "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom, I'm unable to locate any references that meet WP:NORG's criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. ✗plicit 00:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vattakara (film)[edit]

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

There are no reliable reviews for the film nor are there reliable sources that show why this film is notable except for one notable source found here. Every other source in the article is not reliable. One of the lead actors has started making low-key films as of late. If there is a reliable review found, then this discussion can be closed. DareshMohan (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i have attached the references for reviews please check, Monhiroe (talk) 07:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry sir. we need reliable reviews. DareshMohan (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep having correct review. don't vandalism the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monhiroe (talk • contribs) 16:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, by reliable reviews meaning Maalaimalar, The Times of India, etc not these ones (never considered reliable). DareshMohan (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maalaimalarreview.jpg maalai malar review Monhiroe (talk) 05:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I, the nominator, withdraw my nomination given that the review is from Maalai Malar. Surprised why it is not online here, but that is okay. DareshMohan (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okey sir,Thanks Monhiroe (talk) 19:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julian McWatt[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and South America. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any significant coverage. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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