< August 27	August 29 >

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zal Chitty[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sri Lanka. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:49, 14 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!} 21:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has depth. Is it reliable and independent? Cbl62 (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely independent. But there needs to be more. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately. Multiple sources are required to meet the WP:GNG, and I couldn't find any more to add to the one above. I suspect that Sri Lankan newspaper sources from the late 1980s when Zal was the most active contain acceptable sourcing, but notability is generally based on the verified existence of sources, which I cannot provide. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 04:13, 29 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 Encanto#Voice cast. Clear WP:AVALANCHE closure. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Encanto characters[edit]

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

This is essentially a fork of Encanto#Cast (with a lot of copy-and-pasting involved), which is completely unnecessary and unconventional. Character lists for film series are commonplace, but there has only been one Encanto film, so this is premature. A similar page, Madrigal family, was previously merged into Encanto following a merger proposal. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Disney. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't this the start of a franchise like you said?★Trekker (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said it's premature. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it best to redirect/merge then so that the edit history is preserved if we decide to recreate it?★Trekker (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Encanto#Voice_cast, which covers the same subject but without the subheadings. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. As I said several months ago at Talk:Isabela Madrigal#Deletion, in order for this article to exist, it would need to have content beyond the copy-pasted descriptions, which were only ever intended to be a placeholder for more content to be added to. This topic could be notable, but I don't think the article was ready to be promoted to mainspace without further expansion. It needs more work or to wait for more Encanto content to be released in the future. I wouldn't be opposed to redirection either, but I would not support deletion, as it does have a useful edit history and framework if an article is to be created in the future. I'm also going to notify User:SteelerFan1933, who was involved with this article and submitted it to AfC. Aerin17 (t • c) 02:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Encanto#Voice cast. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Encanto#Voice cast - As of now, this is just an unnecessary spinout of the main article. If there ever comes a time when a separate character list is actually needed, it can be spun back out. Rorshacma (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a non-notable spinout. Not enough coverage to pass the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I support a redirect per the other editors in this discussion. I don't see adequate coverage to justify an exceedingly short spin-out that basically repeats the plot summary and voice cast section of Encanto.

Haleth (talk) 06:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to [[Encanto#Voice cast] Lightburst (talk) 02:34, 4 September 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 under WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Dardess[edit]

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

Subject was a non-notable academic, held no appointed chairs, died, and had obituaries written about him. This does not make him independently notable. A Google Books search turns up plenty of places where he has been cited, but this also does not make him independently notable. I did not find the kind of coverage that would qualify this person as notable per our guidelines. A loose necktie (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator here. As the author of nine books and a founder of Ming studies in the United States, I would think clearly meets Notability:author "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);" The obituaries in the principal English-language journals of the field show this. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC) I noted afterwards that one of his works, A Ming Society, an article i haven't been involved in, has a page. (I realise that doesn't clinch anything, but seems relevant). Sheijiashaojun (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, China, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Morris Rossabi of City University of New York described Dardess as "one of the most distinguished historians of traditional China"." Rossabi, Morris (1997). "Review of A Ming Society: Tai-ho County, Kiangsi, in the Fourteenth to Seventeenth Centuries". Journal of Asian History. Andre🚐 07:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR. A cursory Jstor search shows plenty of reviews in reliable independent sources of his books, e.g. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] Citation numbers are also high for a "book field". Looks like a failure of WP:BEFORE? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:NAUTHOR, as described by above editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR per the above. The many book reviews and obituaries published in scholarly journals testify to this author's significant body of work and impact on his field. Topshelver (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easy pass of WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. I added many book reviews to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:AUTHOR Lightburst (talk) 02:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to sources mentioned by Russ Woodroofe. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:40, 4 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Formula One World Championship[edit]

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

A couple of announcements about contracts and rules, but I think this is straight-up crystal ballin'. Mikeblas (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's too soon to create an article about the third-to-next Formula One season. The schedule for next season has not yet been prepared, nor are all of next season's drivers known yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The state of the article makes plain the absurdity of creating it. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG Bruxton (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I searched and couldn't find anything notable about this race. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know very little about Formula One, but I do know that the championship consists of races that go on for much of the year, rather than just one race, and that that sport seems to change its rules every year at short notice, so we can only guess about the format in 2025. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. This article clearly fails WP:GNG. SSSB (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SNOW close. Would probably be reasonable to WP:SALT this for a year or so. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per most of the comments above, clear case of WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:GNG for the time being. Makes no sense when there's not even an article on the 2024 season, and the 2023 one is still full of uncertainties regarding drivers and calendar. MSport1005 (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found. GNG and TOOSOON. It was a good race though. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 31 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 Xtreme (group)#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 23:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We Got Next[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As a draft, article was repeatedly declined, however the creator brought it to mainspace anyway. It was sent to AFD here, which ended in a redirect. The article creator restored the article, so it is here again, with sources from community-created sources. Not sent to CSD because it is somewhat different to the original page. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 23:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - none of the sourcing establishes notability. Whpq (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect per... well, everything here, in the previous nomination, and the failed draft promotion. After two re-creations we're into WP:SALT territory. Waggers TALK 14:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am the one who created this page back in 2020. At the time I was still new to editing and didn't understand much about Wikipedia's policies. I did create this page 2 years ago and it was voted to be redirected. Two years later, which is now, I decided to revive the page in hopes that this time I could make sure it stayed permanently. I added some sites to show its eligibility, but I guess it wasn't enough. I just added a few articles that mentions the album itself and I hope it's enough for you all to reconsider and vote to keep it. I have made other pages of albums that never charted but had an article or 2 to proof it is notable and I have made pages of albums that didn't have a lot of articles but did chart high in the Billboard charts. I mostly create it if it hit the billboard charts. I did made an exception with We Got Next from Xtreme because it was the only album to not have a page. I hope that it stays and I do more improvements to make it valid. Also you all need to take under consideration the fact that this is a Spanish music page so the articles may be mostly in Spanish. They still count as articles regardless.

DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Xtreme (group)#Discography. Still fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:33, 31 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 23:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Syracuse Men's Basketball All-Century Team[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:CBBALL guidelines. In my WP:BEFORE search the only hits were press releases and circular / self-referencing Syracuse pages. SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting list for Basketball. SportsGuy789 (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No independent notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:03, 29 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!} 23:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Language Acquisition Device (computer)[edit]

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

I don't believe that the subject of this article garnered the notability needed to warrant a page in the first place. The only reference included on the page talks about theoretical implications of the software and not its actual adoption or utilization. BBC seems to be the only active source which has published information regarding this project. There isn't any indication that the project is still being worked on or that it even came close to fruition. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect to Language acquisition deviceMoxy-

23:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There were a spate of news stories about this in 2002. Was it notable then? Doesn't seem like it since the stories were based mostly on promises. According to the Wayback machine, the site of the company Lobal (founded by a Professor John Taylor) quickly became defunct. ScienceFlyer (talk) 04:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Topic doesn't meet WP:NPRODUCT. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:36, 4 September 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!} 23:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Women Muslim League[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing has improved since the last AfD. I'm unable to find sources, and the claim that this party is the "first women's political party" in Pakistan is dubious (even if claims like these indicate notability) because the source doesn't make this claim, but someone else related to the party. Everything else I could find was just a mention in a list. Finally, the article was created by User:Rubina Shaheen, modified by User:Pwml, and relatively recently User:Rubinashaheenpk--all clearly COIs. This is just not a notable political party. SWinxy (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Pakistan. SWinxy (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, especially if COI editing is involved. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Islam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I must reserve judgement on whether this is notable or not in any language, but in English language sources I don't see it. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:25, 29 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Savvas Kyriacou[edit]

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

BLP with no real claim of notability, likely an autobiography. Mccapra (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom. Mccapra (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bodybuilding and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article seems to have been created by someone close to the subject or involved with them in some way. However the man that the article is about does meet notability, perhaps also as an athlete, but from what I have found he and his practice have been noted through various independent coverage. It seems that he is notable as a former bodybuilder, trainer with his gym and supplement business per these articles: The Independent, The Face and affaritaliani.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about the current state of the article. It is about if the person is notable or not regardless of the present quality of the article.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please take what im about to say with a gigantic grain of salt, however, sometime i was browsing wp:spi cases, and i remember that there was a sock-farm that was spamming promo stuff, some of them related to this particular person and his buisnesess. This particular article's edit history seems not to be affected, but that case involved the outright speedy deletion of related articles. So, i count this as one more point for deletion. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, references mentioned above contain either passing mentions or the source is minor. Nythar^T^.^C 00:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the 3 sources I found doing a quick google search. The first one has a paragraph about him, the second and third sources are entirely about him. Is there a reason to believe any of them are not reliable sources and can not be used to establish notability?--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PiccklePiclePikel: Is there a reason why you cited that first reference (The Independent) which isn't about him and contains a passing mention? And the other two are minor references. Why is it difficult to understand? If you have a minor article about yourself in a not-that-famous newspaper, does that qualify you for a Wikipedia article? Hey, there are many people with articles in magazines, they don't all deserve Wikipedia articles. Magazines interview many people. What has he done that's so special, or at least, notable? Nythar^T^.^C 01:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nythar: Yes, the 2nd two articles are entirely about him. But the first one is a bit more than a passing mention as it is a whole paragraph putting him and his business in the context of a larger phenomena. Of the two articles entirely about him that you said were minor, its possible, but the Italian one seems to be a source widely used in other wikipedia articles as well and seems to be quite a prominent Italian news site. Overall this guy seems to have won some competitions and be working as a coach, but it seems that the part of him that has been widely noted is his gym/training/supplement activities and him in the context of this business. Although two of those articles do have some large biographical sections on him.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 10:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your second and third sources are both interviews and one of them is a blog. The guy runs a successful small business but this isn’t the stuff of notability. Mccapra (talk) 11:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The guy seems to have some longstanding level of celebrity. Found another article published by "Spitalfields Life Books Ltd". It also contains a significant amount direct quotations to things the man himself has said, but also contains some testimonial type parts about specific people that know him and were trained by him or at his gym. --PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent WP:RS. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:49, 4 September 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 under WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Val Holten[edit]

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

Unable to establish notability. Coverage is extremely sparse on this person, and his name makes it tough to do a thorough search. The most noteworthy thing is that he lives on in an award in cricket, but nothing else I could find. SWinxy (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Cricket, and Australia. SWinxy (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Remember that until recently were were keeping all First Class cricketers. Yes, the strange thing about this player is that he has made a name for himself in what is essentially two levels below FC cricket. But it's at the level that means he still gets coverage in a major Australian newspaper. But the thing is, he was really big in his day ([8][9][10] - all more than routine match coverage) and Notability does not degrade over time. If we were having this conversation in 1954 there would be no question about his notability. St Anselm (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, no - coverage is not extremely sparse - the trick is to click "newspapers" rather than "news". St Anselm (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you were able to find some more sources (Google Books normally shows newspapers as well in the searches). But those sources still don't constitute significant coverage on the person. What you're pulling from is information about the cricket matches Holten played in, not on Holten himself. Being "big in his day" is not a measure for notability, either. If he was notable, you'd have more than one source with his biography (and is Cricket Victoria an RS?). SWinxy (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Cricket Victoria is a reliable source - I see no reason why it shouldn't be. When I say "more than routine match coverage" it was things like (a) he won the Tatts Lottery, (b) he bowled inswingers that moved late, (c) he's one of the state's most useful cricketers. (I could also add [11], which had his run aggregate record.) So more than a run-of-the-mill cricketer. You see, it's not just the coverage (that we can find). It's that he's consistently described by modern major newspapers as "legendary". St Anselm (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But if you really want your two sources with reliable coverage, this is also a reliable source. St Anselm (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What guidelines support your arguments though? What significance of him winning a lottery or a play means he's notable? And what sources are you referring to with that Google search? It's leading to zero newspapers referring to Holten as "legendary". SWinxy (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the Google search because the Herald Sun result there is behind a paywall and so I can't paste the link directly. St Anselm (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, wait - try this. St Anselm (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Copious coverage in Trove: https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/category/newspapers?keyword=%22val%20holten%22 Sheijiashaojun (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second entry there ("Holten made two starts") is certainly significant coverage in an independent reliable source. St Anselm (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly leaning very strongly towards keep - these sorts of players in this sort of era often generated a tonne of coverage in the media. It takes times to extract it all and develop it, but based on what we have here already I'm pretty happy that it can be developed - we've seen similar things this year with other articles. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be enough coverage here for a GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily meets WP:BIO. Deus et lex (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage establishes that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:47, 4 September 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 Renato Martin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Party for Independent Veneto[edit]

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

Very small party based in a city of 26,000 inhabitants (Jesolo) and which has never even participated in the local elections of this city (the electoral results indicated on the page refer to other civic lists led by Renato Martin). Irrelevant party that definitely doesn't meet WP:GNG. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: ~~Politicians~~, Organizations, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A municipal party can be encyclopedic, moreover the PVI was not active only in Jesolo. This said, if there is no consensus on keeping the article, I suggest to merge it with Renato Martin, in order to preserve the article's history, or have a joint article with Veneto Padanian Federal Republic. --Checco (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A municipal party may have its own relevance, but not this one, which has never participated in an election. Same reasoning for Veneto Padanian Federal Republic. I agree to merge it with Renato Martin.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Renato Martin as per above. Yakme (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning merge; more input needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not even Renato Martin is among the most relevant politicians, however he was a discussed figure for his ties to Jörg Haider. The parties he founded, however, are really unknown, a merge/redirect would really be more than enough.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per above; info about the party can be preserved, but it's not worthy of an independent article as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 22:46, 28 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. Duplication issue seems to be fixable outside of AfD. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising revenue[edit]

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

Duplication of Online advertising with a merge proposal rejected following discussoin (deletion as the proposal arising from discussion). Klbrain (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the content in this article is poor, and that the current content does overlap in scope with Online advertising. There is another problem: this article is currently titled "advertising revenue", when it should be moved to "online advertising revenue" because all the content is about online advertising, and not advertising revenue from television, print media, or other non-Internet forms of advertising.

We still should keep because if we combined the text we hit 49k of readable prose, which per WP:TOOBIG is near 50k the point of splitting with length as a rationale. Also despite overlapping in scope, this is a tidy article which does not actually overlap in content with "online advertising". I think it is fine to have an article which stands alone and presents just this facet of online advertising, including by listing the major platforms as it does. Remedies: rename, and link to this article from "online advertising" with a section heading and ((main subject|Advertising revenue)). Bluerasberry (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:FORK of Online advertising. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:37, 28 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!} 19:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a distinct topic and not a fork. It is a revenue slice, like merchandising. However, there is overlap with Online advertising that should be removed, and a clear focus on the income aspect should be made. SWinxy (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Move whatever is specific to Online advertising and add more general information e.g; on what can be found here, advertising revenue taxation, etc. Touchatou (talk) 13:04, 2 September 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate Lab Records[edit]

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

one of several articles created by a PR firm that lack notability. I fail to see how this label is notable, their only artist is/was Jon Lindsay, and that notability is questionable too since this is part of a walled garden to promote him. I can't find any evidence beyond wikipedia mirrors and some old myspace posts and a couple of blogs that this even really existed much less has significant in depth coverage. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with my pickle friend above, largely a PR exercise. No reliable sources or much of anything found. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, California, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NMUSIC in that it was not one of the more important indie labels. If we are treating this as a company or business, then it fails WP:NCORP so, either way, it's a delete. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Just go ahead and delete it. When the label's main signees are one minor artist and a bunch of redlinks, it's pretty obvious it lacks notability. That and the fact there are literally zero results when looking for sources. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 22:51, 28 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 deleted by Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) per A7 and G11. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nishant Taliyan[edit]

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

Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and none of their roles is significant enough to qualify for WP:NACTOR. Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 19:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 28 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!} 23:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

S.G. Balekundri Institute of Technology[edit]

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

A promotional page with no independent coverage MickeyMouse143 (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Schools, and India. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Technology, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 22:54, 28 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!} 23:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha Mandal Engineering College[edit]

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

A promotional page with no independent coverage MickeyMouse143 (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Schools. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Engineering, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads and looks like WP:PROMO --多少战场龙 (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hirasugar Institute of Technology[edit]

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

A promotional page with no independent coverage MickeyMouse143 (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Schools, and India. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Technology, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If nothing else, WP:TNT this brochure-like article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:55, 4 September 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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aadi Adeal[edit]

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

Non notable actor, fails WP:NACTOR MickeyMouse143 (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Pakistan. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep Subject seems well enough known in Pakistan, according to the Daily Times references. There seems to be a substantial body of work from 2017 onwards. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject is a notable person and article have reliable sources. The subject is active and deserves to be on Wikipedia.Lillyput4455 (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be sufficient coverage to meet WP:NACTOR. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:53, 4 September 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 01:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Gernild[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NARTIST (the citation provided does not support the claim that her works are in a permanent collection and that still would not be enough) as well as ANYBIO and GNG. A BEFORE search showed me content she's involved with and where you can buy her artwork but I don't see the sort of coverage we would need. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Denmark. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She is represented by Galleri Bo Bjerggaard in Copenhagen, Denmark ( https://bjerggaard.com/artists/emily-gernild-2/) and Schwarz Contemporary in Berlin, Germany (https://www.schwarz-contemporary.com/artists/emily-gernild). Both website has a link to her solo exhibitions, the publication Black Lemons and link to her CV.

Her work is included in the permanent collection of Trapholt Museum for Modern Art. Please see this link where the museum director Karen Groen interviews her. The work is called “Domestic Landscape No. 13” and was purchased with the help of Beckett Fonden. I will add this to the entry.

https://trapholt.dk/trapholt-zoomer-ind-paa-besoeg-ved-emily-gernild/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSTB4czc_g4

Her work is included in the permanent collection of Kastrupgaardsamlingen. They have all her litographs. Please see this link which describes their collection of more than 6000 artworks, and that Emily Gernild's work is included. The link below describes the exhibition VOKSEVÆRK - Ny Grafik fra samlingen - 20. august - 26. september 2021 - which showed newly acquired artworks and here Emily is included again. I can add this to the entry.

http://www.kastrupgaardsamlingen.dk/samlingen/grafiksamlingen/ Moceroci (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Chris,

I have now added the information to the entry. The four reliable sources are the two museum websites and the museum director. I hope this is sufficient.

Thank you. Moceroci (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will add links to all the exhibitions at the art museums. Moceroci (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added all the links. If more are required then please let me know. Moceroci (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chris,

I have tried to follow the format of all the female artists and designers listed on below Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Danish_women_artists

and tried to link up Emily Gernild with below page:

https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Årets_Harald

Can you let me know if there is anything missing or if I need to add or edit information?

Many thanks Moceroci (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article, like the previous versions, reads as if written by the subject's promoters, with no solid indications per WP:RS and Wikipedia:Notability (people) that it was intended to be anything more than that. – Athaenara ✉ 19:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete. I'll suggest edits to make the page better fit with the editors' wishes. A Google search shows that the subject is important enough to have a Wiki profile, so a deletion is too drastic a remedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igwatala (talk • contribs) 10:08, 25 August 2022(UTC)

The ~~now blocked and banned~~ paid-to-edit editor's wishes are not what matter here, what matters are Wikipedia's standards, policies, and guidelines. – Athaenara ✉ 19:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(I was thinking of another paid-to-edit editor, sorry.) – Athaenara ✉ 22:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I spent some time trying to bring this article up to english wikipedia standards. Removed uncited CV material and other uncited information. The section on "style" is still subjective and uncited. Added her to wikidata. I don't know enough about local ~~Dutch~~ Danish art venues to understand the significance of her shows. I suspect this is WP:TOOSOON. I do suspect there is a COI in the creation of this article with an exact birth date and place, which I could not find a reference for. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @WomenArtistUpdates I've added the missing sources from the Museum Gl. Holtegaard, and deleted anything that can't be backed up. I hope it lives up to the standards of Wikipedia. Moceroci (talk) 21:23, 27 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!} 18:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Updated the page with a reference to her second exhibition publication from Roennebaeksholm Museum. Added a quote by Art historian Grant Klarich Johnson and Art Critic Maria Kjær Themsen from her book about the history of Danish art and its artists. It compares her work with other female artists. Added a link to the wall mural Gernild created for the town Holbaek. Also added 'See also' with links to other female artists. Moceroci (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In addition to the updates from WomenArtistUpdates, I have added a link to an article about the artist in 2019 from the most credible newspaper in Denmark. It is an interview with the artist on her exhibition at Roennebaeksholm Museum. Moceroci (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost seems like it's too soon for notability. She's in the permanent collection of museums, with one work each it seems. I wouldn't say it's significant to the museum. One book published showing her art, nothing in GScholar at all. Best I can find is a few auction catalogues. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:07, 3 September 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 06:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Errr-Magazine[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original rationale was: No independent coverage; fails WP:GNG. Rationale still stands. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article several years ago. This magazine was pretty popular in some circles. It appears in a couple of books that study new Mexican reading habits, more notably "Hacia una antropologia de los lectores [12] and "Estética" [13]. I think that should be enough to establish notability. If that's good enough, I'll update the article with them. -Solid Reign (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: User:Solid Reign, those two sources appear to contain trivial coverage of the subject at hand. To count towards establishing notability, sources need to have significant coverage of the subject. As I was unable to find any SIGCOV, I support deleting this article. House Blaster^talk 21:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:02, 4 September 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 Autonomists for Europe. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Future Veneto[edit]

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

Tiny unknown party and existed for a very short time, totally absent in the sources. Page written in a few lines, in practice the party existed and nothing else. It doesn't meet WP:GNG. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, it existed for a brief time with nothing since for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The party was represented in Parliament for two years by a senator, its leader Giuseppe Ceccato, and a handful of deputies. We should avoid recentism: this party was relevant enough to have an article in Wikipedia, is mentioned in several sources, including the book cited in the article and in a several articles of Corriere della Sera (most notably 18 July 1999, 25 August 1999 and 2 February 2001) and, of course, in dozen of articles of regional newspapers like Il Gazzettino or Il Giornale di Vicenza. While the party is quite old, there are still more than 100 Google hits for "veneto futuro" + "ceccato". As I said, we should avoid recentism. This said, if there is no consensus on keeping the article, I hope we can at least merge it into Autonomists for Europe in order to preserve the article's history. --Checco (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I look at the Google Hits link here above (motivation for keeping which would be preferable to avoid) and I see that most of the sites that mention it have are linked to Wikipedia: you should also check the content of Google hits before mentioning it as a reason for maintenance. However I can agree to merge it with Autonomists for Europe. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Autonomists for Europe as this party is not a party on its own, but just the Veneto regional section of ApE. Yakme (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion is slightly leaning toward a merge, with the nominator stating later in the discussion that a merge would be functional. However, overall input here is rather sparse, and is still divergent; more opinions are needed for a solid consensus to be ascertained.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 21 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!} 18:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to whichever article is more apropriate. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning to delete this voice, because this party cannot be found in any reliable sources. However, looking at the other comments in this AfD, as alternative, I'd propose to redirect to Autonomists for Europe. P1221 (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally agree with nom. --多少战场龙 (talk) 14:03, 2 September 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 01:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jawaker[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. All sources read like press releases with significant promotional content. No independent and reliable refs discussing the subject. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:26, 21 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!} 18:45, 28 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 04:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Jama[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, Somalia, and Netherlands. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:16, 21 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!} 18:43, 28 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Smidt[edit]

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

i fail to see how Smidt is notable on his own, virtually all sources discussing him, do so directly in relation to Harbor Freight, if at all. This should be deleted and redirected to the company. PRAXIDICAE🌈 09:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE (Harbor Freight is not a Fortune 500 company). I honestly don't even think it should redirect to the company, as it's a common name and an unlikely search target for someone looking for Harbor Freight, and he won't always be CEO. I think a better redirect target might be Smidt Tech, given that it's literally named after him (though I have questions about the reliability of that article too). - Aoidh (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that the article achieves WP:GNG for the reasons that articles on founders of similar companies achieve WP:GNG. For example, the articles about John Menard Jr. and Johnny Morris, the founders of Menards and Bass Pro Shops, appear to feature similar content as in this article. There is an understandable reference to each founder's business, followed by content and citations to significant coverage, in reliable sources independent of the subject, about each founder outside of his work with his company, including citations regarding politics, community work, and personal life. - David Stargell (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @David Stargell: That's a lot of buzz words, but how about a link to one of these amazing sources? ––FormalDude talk 15:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @FormalDude: The current article cites, among other sources, the Los Angeles Daily News, the Los Angeles Business Journal, Guidestar, LA Weekly, and Inside Philanthropy. These citations are mostly for news events related to the individual and separate from the company. The article could be improved by adding links to additional content applicable to the individual, such as new links from the Wall Street Journal or Bloomberg. Overall, the content and sources in this article appear similar to other articles of similar founders that achieve WP:GNG, which is why it seems this article also achieves WP:GNG. David Stargell (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Los Angeles Daily News – Trival mention, not significant coverage.
    - Los Angeles Business Journal – Doesn't mention Smidt at all.
    - Guidestar – Obviously a tax form does not count towards notability.
    - LA Weekly – This reads like an opinion piece.
    - Bloomberg – See WP:Perennial sources#Bloomberg profiles.
    - That leaves WSJ and Inside Philanthropy, both of which I'm unsure about. ––FormalDude talk 22:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @FormalDude: Comments on each source:
      Wall Street Journal: The article is focused on the subject about a notable item separate from his company. The WSJ is a reliable source independent of the subject.
      
      Inside Philanthropy: The article is focused on the subject about a notable item separate from his company. Inside Philanthropy is a reliable source independent of the subject.
      
      Bloomberg: The link at left is a specific article within Bloomberg that is focused on the subject, about a notable item separate from his company. Bloomberg is a reliable source independent of the subject. To address the comment above, this link is a specific article and not the Bloomberg profile.
      
      Los Angeles Daily News: The mention appears to exceed trivial and meet the "significant coverage" standard by nature of the subject's role in an initiative that was notable and heavily debated in Los Angeles for multiple years. The reference addresses the subject in detail and requires no original research.
      
      Guidestar: Agreed and point taken.
      
      LA Weekly: I think this article is consistent with the style of LA Weekly, which is a notable independent newspaper in the Los Angeles area. The article is about the subject, independent from his company, and the facts in the article appear relevant in the same manner as similar founders' political funding to their own Wikipedia articles.
      
      Los Angeles Business Journal: The link at left is a different link from the one above from the same source. This article is a profile that contains multiple significant notable items separate from his company. The Los Angeles Business Journal is a reliable source independent of the subject.
      
      On balance, I think the articles above, save Guidestar, support WP:GNG and would be consistent with the support for articles about similar founders. David Stargell (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the sources you listed, and aside from Bloomberg, all of those are absolutely trivial mentions that do not contribute to WP:GNG. That other individuals have articles is not a reason to keep this one. - Aoidh (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at each of the links again and they appear to support WP:GNG. For example, the WSJ, Bloomberg, Inside Philanthropy, and LA Weekly articles are all directly about the subject, and no original research is needed to extract the content. These articles themselves are original research and not from a newswire service. This appears to meet the definition of WP:SIGCOV. The articles discuss notable items about the subject beyond his work at his company. The links also cover the subject over several years, which shows that the subject has attracted attention over a significant period of time. David Stargell (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per my evaluation of sources above. ––FormalDude talk 22:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: CEO and philanthropist of Smidt's coverage and prominence seems in the spirit of WP:GNG. Consider adding mention to Smidt's profile of his gift to the Holocaust_Museum_LA cited here: NBC Los Angeles, here: The Chronical of Philanthropy, and here: Spectrum News 1 - Razomatic (talk) 18:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are almost all press releases. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While none of the three appear to be press releases, maybe pick the one(s) that aren't. Razomatic (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this and this is a word for word copy of a press release, distributed to multiple sources. Unless of course you think all of them have no journalistic integrity and just copy the other. Not to mention this isn't even substantially about him. But by all means tell me how a widely distributed press release by City News Service isn't a press release. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
City News Service is a regional news service in Southern California. It is not a PR service. I'm basing this on reviewing its website and in reviewing the archive of content it's provided to Los Angeles media outlets (see this example of its content on the website of the ABC affiliate in Los Angeles). The articles from City News Service appear to be hard news, including local politics, the state of the local economy, and reports about local crime. It's reasonable that an article from City News Service, which is basically a Southern California version of the Associated Press, would be picked up by multiple local news outlets. David Stargell (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've miraculously missed the point that all of the sources are the same wording because it's a press release. PICKLEDICAE🥒 23:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two items:
The article from City News Service (link here, via NBC LA) appears distinct from Holocaust Museum LA's article (link here). The differences between these two articles seems to indicate that the City News Service article is not a press release.

This donation appears to have been covered by multiple independent sources that have different content from what's on Holocaust Museum LA's website. For an example, here's a detailed write-up from Philanthropy News Digest, with more detailed write-up than either Holocaust Museum LA's website or the City News Service article.

In summary, this article from City News Service is an additional independent source in support of WP:GNG. The current sources are independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage of the subject. David Stargell (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination, pr and press releases, fails WP:SIGCOV. Shaniquagreen (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For his philanthropy, this should stay. In addition to the $5 million gift the Smidt Foundation gave the Holocaust Museum LA in June ‘22, he gifted $25 million to LACMA in 2016. LA Times link: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-cm-lacma-smidt-gift-20161028-story.html Olivia Goldberg (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to source analysis by FormalDude. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless sources that provide more intepennntend coverage are found, 'Delete. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The NBC Los Angeles article cited above is now in the article, along with the existing independent and reliable sources. The amount of independent sources listed appears to show that this article meets WP:GNG.
David Stargell (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Press release concerns mentioned above aside, that is absolutely trivial coverage and in no way contributes to the notability of the subject. If this is the calibre of coverage that is being used to justify the article, it is clear there isn't enough there to have an article. - Aoidh (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The references in the article prior to this discussion appeared to support WP:GNG. The additional article from NBC LA (provided through a news service, not a PR firm) is additional support for what appears to have been sufficient to show WP:GNG in the existing article per WP:BEFORE. Item D in WP:BEFORE indicates that a basic Google search or Google News search should provide sufficient sources to prove notability. In this case, both a Google search and a Google News search show a volume of content about the subject, including many articles linked in the existing article before this discussion. Item D3 further indicates that the mentions should be beyond passing references, and the references in the article pass that threshold. The references, both existing and new after this discussion started, feature the subject as the subject of the article. - David Stargell (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not additional support, it is literally a trivial mention and does not contribute to notability in any capacity; per WP:GNG that source adds no value to a consideration of notability. As discussed above, the references, including the press releases and other sources FormalDude evaluated above are not sufficient for various reasons, and the number of WP:GHITS is irrelevant to the notability of a subject. Notability is not and has never been based on "volume of content". - Aoidh (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The support for WP:GNG in this case is beyond "volume of content." The subject of this article has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, including at minimum the articles directly about the subject in the WSJ (feature articles, not a bio index page), Bloomberg (the feature article, not a bio index page), Inside Philanthropy, and the LA Business Journal. The subject's volume of WP:GHITS is presented as intended, as additional support in evaluating WP:GNG versus an independent case for it. The articles directly about the subject appear to indicate non-triviality, and even articles where he is not the subject (like political action) would tend toward non-triviality. In reviewing the sum of the evidence, including the multiple articles featuring the subject from reliable sources on a regional & national level, the case is stronger for WP:GNG than for the counter. - David Stargell (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're repeating the same refuted arguments, the WSJ piece is trivial. Bloomberg is problematic as a likely SPS and doesn't muster WP:GNG. The Inside Philanthropy piece, outside of the quotes directly from him (non-independent), is trivial. The LA Business Journal article you're referring to doesn't even mention him, at all! This is a bunch of noise. Granted, there's a lot of the noise being thrown into the mix, but when you sit and look at each source on its merits, every single one falls short of being a reliable, independent third-party source that has significant coverage of this article's subject. You can't just list off a bunch of publisher names as if that creates notability anymore than you can appeal to the "volume of content". This is not a notable topic; naming publishers without context does not change this. WP:GHITS is presented as intended? It is not "additional support", it is the same level of support that the sources in the article provide: none at all. Searching "Eric Smidt" could return 8 billion results, and that wouldn't matter one iota in terms of notability, so mentioning how many results are returned on a Google search is meaningless. We're not going to agree, so let's just agree to disagree, because your explanation as to why this article is notable is not in keeping with Wikipedia's definition of notability, independence, or triviality. - Aoidh (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A plain reading of the links above & the sources listed prior to this discussion supports WP:GNG. The WSJ article is about the subject directly and mentions him by name in the subhead. The Bloomberg article is about the subject directly and mentions him by name in the subhead, and the tone & content of the article demonstrate it's not SPS. The Inside Philanthropy article is about the subject and mentions him by name in the first paragraph. The LABJ article is about the subject directly and mentions him by name at the start. These are a sample of the articles available via search that establish WP:GNG, and the article as it was prior to the discussion contained significant references about the subject from multiple independent sources, which supported and supports WP:GNG. - David Stargell (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to go in circles with you about these same sources over and over. It has already been explained why those sources do not contribute to the notability of the subject. Your editing history is uniquely focused on this subject and surrounding topics; I would suggest editing more outside of the scope of this topic and to get a better understanding of what notability is on Wikipedia and what kind of sources are expected. - Aoidh (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's mainly to clarify some of the points above about the sources cited above. For example, a lot of this thread went to explaining that City News Service is a news wire (as indicated correctly on its Wikipedia page) and not a PR firm, which readers living in Los Angeles would know based on their use of other media, but which those outside of Los Angeles may not know. To help with evaluating WP:GNG for this or any other article, it seems helpful to clarify something that's as critical to a source's credibility as whether or not it's news. I recognize and appreciate that you do not agree with the view that this article is WP:GNG. I encourage a plain reading of the sources listed in this discussion & previously in the article. - David Stargell (talk) 04:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com brings up some coverage, see for example this detailed article on the front page of the LA Times (part 2) and this article in the Santa Maria Times. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The LA Times article is just the print version of the LA Times article discussed above and the second source (which is by the AP and can be found digitally on other sites such as here) is about a lawsuit and has trivial content about Eric Smidt, mentioning of some allegations; the meat of that text is the lawsuit itself, nothing useful about Eric Smidt can be gleaned from it. - Aoidh (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. Notable CEO of a large company of 1300 stores. Bobherry Talk My Edits 00:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harbor Freight is not a Fortune 500 company, so per WP:NBUSINESSPERSON being the CEO of the company does not create notability, no matter how many stores they operate. - Aoidh (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention notability is NOTINHERITED. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG. Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only find one article that is significantly about him: "Rough road to philanthropy; Early obstacles set the stage for businessman Eric Smidt, whose $25-million gift gives LACMA a boost. Fleishman, Jeffrey. Los Angeles Times; Los Angeles, Calif. [Los Angeles, Calif]. 29 Oct 2016: A.1." ebsco link. Most of the references in the article are not RS - They are: his company site; prnewswire; some links for organizations mentioned in the article but that say nothing about him; a fair number of 404's. So, if another one or two significant RSs are found, then the item of work is to remove all of the essentially unreferenced information. Lamona (talk) 03:40, 4 September 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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Telepen[edit]

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

Non-notable tech. Unfortunately, I can't find anything resembling a usable source at all (string:telepen barcode) but this is solely based on online searches; I would not be surprised given the age of the standard if there're more usable sources in offline media. As it sits, the article's sourced only to the barcode's symbology webpage, and the article as writ is over-detailed. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 09:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we could find another source to corroborate the company's claim that it is widely used in British libraries, but there are still products out there which can generate and print Telepen codes. Also, deleting would make Barcode and Template:Barcodes less complete. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 13:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the standard has been in use since the late 70's, per the article's claims, it's entirely possible offline sources for this exist. I just can't find anything online but links to those aforementioned products and non-responsive stuff about extendable pens. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 18:46, 13 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!} 22:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article isn't eligible for a no-quorum deletion as it has a contested PROD in its history from March 2014. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We also have articles about other less common barcodes types. The standard was used quite widely a while back when every industry and manufacturer preferred it's own barcode symbology and the equipment often only supported one type of barcode. Not that common nowadays for general applications, but still supported by most barcode scanners and software today and used in some niche applications. I have seen it used even today by many manufacturers of barcode scanners for special barcodes that are used to configure the barcode scanner itself by scanning various codes printed in the manual (probably because it encodes binary data instead of text, so accidentally reconfiguring a scanner is less probable). Sources certainly exist, but they are probably sitting on a shelf in a library somewhere as it fell out of use somewhat before the internet became common. I might even be able to provide some, but it would have to wait until early November (the library is moving right now and the books are not accessible). --91.115.25.250 (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting is not an option here; the article does not support notability now and empty promises to fix the sourcing are flat-out meaningless. The PROD was contested on those grounds and nothing came of it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourcing we can find is a little scarce, but this was a time when most documentation and news was paper-based. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've found one source that I could access in a limited fashion and added it. It primarily deals with the utility industry, but it does mention in one paragraph about different barcode types that "[Telepen] is often used by academic libraries for the identification of books, particularly in Europe." --91.115.25.250 (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:11, 28 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 Bay Ridge Branch. The question of what information about the station should be incorporated over at the target can be dealt with outside AfD. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kouwenhoven station[edit]

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

Created by a sockpuppet. A G5 CSD attempt was opposed by another editor, so here we are. This station is not notable, existing refs come nowhere close to meeting GNG, and I haven't found much of anything from a BEFORE search. The outcome here should be a redirect to Bay Ridge Branch, but as that would certainly be contested, I am nominating the article for deletion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a nice subsection perhaps for former railway stations in the main article about the railway; it closed 100 yrs ago and likely won't get much more notable these days. I don't find much beyond fan-sites for rail nerds such as myself. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bay Ridge Branch#Former stations. Clear GNG fail, and there doesn't seem to be any relevant information available other than the open/close dates already in that table. Myrtle Avenue station (LIRR Bay Ridge Branch) should also be deleted for the same reasons (save for G5 ineligibility, as it was created by a legitimate user.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Oaktree b. We have a small amount of verifiable encyclopaedic information, we don't have enough to sustian an article but there is no reason to remove the information when there is a clearly appropriate merge target. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Type 805 dispatch boat[edit]

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

Spotted in NPP. I cannot find any references for this class of boat online, and it's sourced to only one reference which I cannot access. This does not meet notability guidelines. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and China. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (But what's NPP?) -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Patrol. Or New Payments Platform if you're in Australia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:54, 28 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. Nomination withdrawn per nom's comment and no !votes other than those to keep. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Krohn[edit]

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

Subject is not notable. WP:BEFORE only turns up trivial mentions in the context of sports, and basically nothing for business. Madeline (part of me) 16:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, and American football. Madeline (part of me) 16:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Using my Newspapers.com account provided by The Wikipedia Library, I was able to find significant coverage of his college football career in Arizona Daily Star and Tucson Citizen, as well as from later in his career in the Philadelphia Inquirer. I'm not entirely sure if you need a subscription, but here are the links to "clippings" of the coverage: 1, 2, 3a, 3b. casualdejekyll 18:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Was a quarterback in a team in the top level league in Canada, Canadian Football League, and so satisfies the criteria of having needed to appear in at least one top level league game. In his United States career he played for two teams that were in the United States Football League which is now disbanded, I am not sure if that was considered a top level league at its time or not, its not the NFL which I believe is the top level league in US Football. Regardless, they were top level in their Canadian career.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played two full seasons at quarterback in high-level professional leagues (the CFL, the top level of canadian football, and the USFL, the second-highest level of american football at the time) and was a starting QB in college for a D-I-FBS program. Clearly passes GNG with the sources listed by casualdejekyll. Pretty much anybody who did any of the prior listed things will have SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In light of casualdejekyll's sources I'd be willing to withdraw this nomination if nobody objects. Madeline (part of me) 18:19, 28 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!} 16:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rockport Junction, Indiana[edit]

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

Railroad junction mislabeled as an unincorporated community; my BEFORE search did not find sufficient significant coverage to meet GNG. The article was deprodded due to having several hundred newspaper references. These are nearly all passing mentions, the majority being daily timetables in the Jasper Herald, listings of where one can find a newspaper box offering free copies of "Best Bets" and various railroad-related miscellany. I'm not seeing anything that comes close to establishing evidence of a community or significant coverage that would satisfy GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 15:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and Indiana. –dlthewave ☎ 15:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by deprodded?--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wiki-lingo. I had proposed uncontroversial deletion (PROD), and someone else contested the proposed deletion by removing the PROD template (de-PROD). This brings us to AfD which is for deletions that might require further discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 16:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes sense now.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Rockport Junction (Indiana) per rail junction naming conventions and redirect to Lincoln State Park, where it is located, per Wikipedia:NGEO: If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. Djflem (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not notable, and there's no point in shoehorning it into the Lincoln State Park article. It's just not worthy of any mention, it's literally just a switch. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 1979 U.S. Geological Survey that is the 2nd reference in the article classes it as a Populated Place. 3rd reference calls it a "community, now considered part of Rockport q.v." (as of 1995, the date that that source was published). I can't seem to acess the source from the first reference. So as per those sources, it appears that it is indeed some kind of community, and it is not a switch or junction as we assume today from the usage of the word junction, but was rather called junction because of that depot type thing that it was near, adjacent to the bit of railroad.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first and second refs are the same GNIS source, which isn't reliable for labeling anything as a community as it's full of random locations mislabeled as "populated places". I'm not sure what to make of Hoosier place names; it describes a location "just east of Rockport, now considered part of Rockport" which isn't at all consistent with the coordinates which point to a junction 15 miles North of town. –dlthewave ☎ 19:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the physical junction is indeed way north of Rockport as you say. I think the Hoosier source just worded it a bit carelessly, going directly east of Rockport would cross state borders into Kentucky. The junction is mostly north of Rockport, (although slightly east). However the section of the railroad that is going toward the junction is coming from Rockport, it goes mostly north but some time before the junction the railroad turns east and the section of railroad coming from Rockport to the junction appears to be coming from the east if you don't zoom out. I think the person who visited that Rockport Junction community to gather the information that eventually got published in that book just observed or was told at that time of the visit that the railroad comes from Rockport for which the junction is named and then observed that the railroad was coming from the east, and this never got checked or corrected.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The original author @Gilliam: of the page seems to still be around. Maybe they can provide more information or insight into where this community lives or lived exactly in relation to the physical junction. Perhaps its simply people who used to live in what is now lincoln park or maybe it is people who used to live in lincoln park what is not the lake lincoln campground.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually scratch that lincoln park idea, I think I found the real rockport junction as mentioned in the Hoosier source, and its different than the other source. And it is in a place where it makes much more sense that there would have been a community there in the past. It is where the Rockport Generating Station is now located. It ~~is a "junction" in the sense as mentioned in the hoosier source as it~~ is a place where a kind of train depot seems to have been located in the past with the railroad seeming to end in some way. It's also more of a place where an end station would be which matches up with those other sources dlthewave found that he links at the top. And it is also east of rockport as the source mentions. And it is also visibly now part of the Rockport greater area. And it goes further, that area has alot of coal mining going on as we can see from the maps. I speculated that the community that used to live there were coal power plant and coal mining workers from past generations where it was still much more normal to live in the area that you worked in regards to large factories and perhaps also coal plants/mines.... so I dug deeper. As the Hoosier source is from 1995, i went to google earth and went back in time. And I finally solved the riddle. There were whole sections of rairoad back then that are gone now, and yes, west of where the power plant is today there used to be a junction. That junction is Rockport Junction. If you look at present day google maps you can still kind of see from the treeline and texture of the terrain where there used to be two railroads meeting in a junction. The axact coordinates of that junction are (37°55'41.5"N 87°02'46.4"W)or (37.928205, -87.046225)--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually found another junction that matches more with both sources. Hoosier and USGS. It is here (38.1072743, -87.0066634). It is still east of rockport, and it is visibly a train depot as matches with the Hoosier source. And it matches with the USGS source in its proximity to Chrisney which is its location according to the USGS source. The coordinates on the USGS source seem to be wrong because that source is internally inconsistent. The coordinates that are in the USGS source are between Gentryville and Lincoln City whereas that source also states that the place is in Chrisney which is way south of those coordinates. So in conclusion I think the Hoosier source is actually right, and the USGS just has the wrong coordinates but the information in it is decently correct.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This book may provide more insight and this article which I can't access. Also this book.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable railroad junction is not what we should have articles or redirects for. This is not even an "informal place". Reywas92^Talk 02:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinates in the article are wrong, and point to the wrong junction. After the research (above) I have been able to uncover the actual junction. It has been noted as some kind of settlement in more than one source. It has also been noted as a place in a few other sources found by the nominator. Presumably there is source material that can be found offline given that there appears to have been a community there. The archive that was located online is only an indicator of what could be found. Also given that there are large scale coal mining operations right next to it the area was well surveyed in some way.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete I can find no map evidence for a junction at the site of the power plant, and the junction as mapped in the topos is just an isolated spot. I also see no point in redirecting to the state park. Mangoe (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those coordinates are wrong. The junction at the powerplant no-longer exists because the segment of rail going into Rockport was removed, however if you go back in time in google earth you will find it. Also the junction that I think is actually the correct one does exist still in the coordinates that I mentioned, it is next to the railway depot as the book source mentions so that seems to match up nicely. These are the coordinates (37.973772, -87.039158). PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second set of coordinates you give are within a few tens of feet of the spot given by GNIS; if you convert them to DMS the difference is a few tens of seconds on latitude and less than a tenth of a second on longitude. This last set is for the switch leading into one of Air Liquide's facilities, but it was installed no earlier than the late 1980s. The first set is another spot where the old topos and aerials show nothing, back into the early 1900s. I'm sure that the GNIS location is accurate and that it indicates a junction that was always isolated. Mangoe (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i've been a bit sloppy as I was actively researching this while posting the replies, the first set of coordinates by the coal plant are supposed to be this (37.928122, -87.046246). The reason that I believe the GNIS coordinates are wrong is because it says its on the map of Chrisney which is way south of the coordinates. Also the other sources match much better with one of the two junctions I found because the junction is supposed to be in the greater Rockport area and the GNIS coordinates just seem to be way too far north for that. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That just means it's on the Chrisney 1:24,000 quad map which covers a fairly large area North of Chrisney. Put in the coordinates from the article (38.107222, -87.006667) at Topoviewer and you'll see the Chrisney map in the results with Rockport Junction marked exactly at those coords. –dlthewave ☎ 14:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Railway junction lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:12, 4 September 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. More editors supported keeping than deleting/redirecting, but the arguments themselves do not amount to a consensus. Perhaps the passing of time will make the issue clearer. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C. 9–0 AFC Bournemouth[edit]

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

Not notable in the big picture. This match would be perfectly fine at List of highest-scoring Premier League matches. Also, no content apart from basic statistics. There probably are notable matches that merit separate articles, but those should be reserved for championship finals and such. Tone 15:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not remotely notable. It's not a record score, nothing spectacular about the match in other respects, and to be honest once a match is clearly a rout, 9-0 is not much more surprising than 5-0. A closely fought 4-3 is much more interesting and momentous than this. We should probably consider deleting other prior 9-0 matches on the same grounds. — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ROUTINE. To prove my point; on the same day Celtic beat Dundee United 9-0 away (Match report from The Guardian) and Montpellier HSC beat Stade Brestois 7-0 away (L'Équipe report), whereas Union Berlin beat Schalke 04 6-1 away the day before (Kicker report). Abcmaxx (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also WP:NOTSTATS may apply here. Abcmaxx (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The results you have mentioned are in leagues, which are much less competitive than the Premier League, hence why this is only the fourth time it has occurred in the Premier League since its inception in 1992. Saltysers (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. This result is notable, a it is only the fourth occasion that this has happened in the 30 year history of the Premier League, and all previous occasions also have their own articles. Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C., Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Southampton F.C., and Southampton F.C. 0–9 Leicester City F.C. respectively. Makes no sense to not include this result as well. Saltysers (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To further consider my point, this is Liverpool's record win and Bournemouth's record defeat in Premier League football, as well as being a match where two Liverpool players reached milestones. (Van Dijk 200th PL appearance, Henderson 400th appearance). Finally, this was the first Liverpool match in wake of the tragic murder of 9 year-old Olivia Pratt-Korbel; where Liverpool paid tribute to the girl who was a resident of the city. Saltysers (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any subsequent conversation should take place on the Talk section of the article Saltysers (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but whereas you could possibly argue Scottish league is less competitive because its dominated by 2 teams or that they are from a smaller nation, that is certainly not true for Germany or France. Besides even the Scottish second tier is fully professional. The Premier League is not superior to argue it is is WP:BIAS, besides you miss the point that high scores in top leagues is nothing new or rare. We are not a Liverpool FC fan-page, per WP:TRIVIA. By any standards Celtic have a huge fanbase and Dundee Utd. have a much bigger European pedigree than Bournemouth (who have none actually). It's all subjective. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would like to add that in your words: "it is only the fourth occasion" How arbitrary is this? Where's the cut-off point? Fifth, sixth, fourteenth? If a team wins by the same scoreline next week, does that match deserve a page? MattSucci (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the Premier League, a 9-0 is a rarity. 4 out of 11,500+ matches have ended with that scoreline. Given the demands of the league and its level of competitiveness in comparison to other top divisions around the world, these are more notable than say PSG of France winning 9-0 against a newly promoted team of their division. 2.30.67.159 (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how PSG, current champions, beating a newly promoted team is less notable than Liverpool, a vice-champion, beating Bournemouth, a newly promoted team. Also Man City own 4 of the last 5 championships, and its the same 4-5 clubs routinely in the top 4-5 spots in the league pretty much since 1997. How is that more competitive than other nations? Abcmaxx (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In response to when the cut-off is, I would say when the record is broken (10-0 win in prem) 2.30.67.159 (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per Abcmaxx's argument, WP:ROUTINE applies here and the match is simply an interesting but unnotable occasion of a high score. The page is now being padded out in an attempt to make it appear more noteworthy than it is. Also, Amakuru makes a valid point that the other 9-0 pages probably deserve to be deleted too. I argue that the first 9-0 win is the only match that deserves its own page, MattSucci (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The match is notable as it equalled the record win in the Premier League. As the three other matches were this happened have an entry, this one should too. It's either that or they all go up for deletion in my view as they're all as notable as each other. NapHit (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth pointing out that you are a self-confessed LFC fan? Usually such things seem more notable if you support the club in question. Abcmaxx (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am in no way a Liverpool fan like NapHit, however as a footballing fan I believe it carries significant importance and as a result should remain. His point stands. 2.30.67.159 (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Liverpool fan, but I have also nominated previous Liverpool matches that have been created if I don't believe they are notable. 4–0 against Barca and the 1984 semi-final against Dinamo Bucharest are cases in point. It's notable because it's the record win in the Premier League, along with three other matches which each have pages. If those ones have pages then it only stands to reason this one should have. NapHit (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue a match that sets a particular record is more notable than one that matches it. The first 9-0 stood unmatched for 24 years and the Southampton-Leicester result could make a case for staying as the record away win. With each subsequent match of that scoreline, the justification for its own page decreases. If and when we get the first 10-0 Premier League result, all four pages will be redundant. Apocnowt (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For me, I can see the argument from both sides. However, I think this should be deleted because, as stated by MattSucci, it’s more of an interesting scoreline than anything else. The problem is that we have let these other 9–0 pages pass, but when do we stop the trend. The first 9–0 was notable with Manchester United and Ipswich for being the first in the Premier League era, and an argument can be made for Leicester’s away victory against Southampton seeing as it was the biggest away win. However, I don’t think any of the 9–0’s since should have their own pages. Also, on a separate note, I think it is too soon to judge what impact this result has going forward so if it is decided to be kept, I think draftify should be an option put forward. Fats40boy11 (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that there is enduring notability beyond routine coverage of a high scoring game. Spike 'em (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - It is the joint biggest win in the history of the most famous soccer league in the world. It may not have set the record, but it is a record nonetheless. To be honest, I think we need to stop demanding that matches be record-setters and actually deal with matches on their own merits based on coverage. I know it's crystal-balling to assume that the coverage will come for this game, but the magnitude of the result makes that almost guaranteed. – Pee Jay 21:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ROUTINE and WP:ENDURING. Long-term significance is highly improbable. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Every other 9-0 Premier League result has its own article, so long as this one is well-written I don’t remotely see how it should be deleted. The Kip (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the three articles in question, 1 easily sails through the GNG, having retrospectives about it produced decades later. The other two have issues. I haven't looked at their sourcing in depth enough to be definitive about it (and I don't want to even try to embark on the before required to bring them to a deletion discussion), but both are mostly sourced to articles from within days of when they happened, which implies they will have problems passing a notability test. Rockphed (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. While I agree with The Kip – the other 9-0 results had their own articles and a 9-0 win in the Premier League is rare – I also understand Ad Orientem's point, as this match may have little importance once the season is over. If this event is really not significant enough to have its own article, I would suggest to redirect it to the 2022–23 Premier League page instead. Vida0007 (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: In case the consensus would be "delete", it should be redirected to List of highest-scoring Premier League matches#Biggest winning margin instead. Vida0007 (talk) 14:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now until the record is surpassed. The same goes for the three other 9-0 matches. However, if this gets merged anyway, I would still stand by my proposal that it would be merged with the List of highest-scoring Premier League matches article. Vida0007 (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This match equalled the record win in the Premier League. As the three other 9-0 matches have an entry, this one should too. If this is deleted then the others need to goa also. Fernandosmission (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They may get deleted if someone nominates them on the notability basis, so this is not convincing argument. For example, think of a match that ends 10-0, then these are nothing special anymore, even in statistical terms. Tone 08:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only is this a rare occasion in the Premier League (the fourth occasion out of 11,686 Premier League matches 2.30.67.159 (talk) 10:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is synonymous with a tragedy which took place in Liverpool in the corresponding week, in which the football club continues to support the investigation of Olivia Pratt-Korbel's death. While the 9-0 is rare and alone should be the reason the article remains, it is a time signature from the footballing world of when something directly affected the city and the club.

Going forwards, if these results were to occur more frequently (10+ times), then perhaps at that point a new article named "9-0 wins in the Premier League" could be created.

Other characteristics of the notability from a footballing perspective include: Milestone appearances for two of Liverpool's players, Milestone goal tally for one of Liverpool's players, Bournemouth's biggest ever top flight defeat, Harvey Elliott's first PL goal, Liverpool's biggest ever victory.

An event is considered "rare" or "unusual" if its probability is 0.05 or less.reference. This was the 4th out of 11,686 matches. 0.03% of PL matches have ended 9-0, which is less than the definition of a rarity, therefore this result should be classed as notable in its own right, without the extenuating factors and events surrounding the fixture. 2.30.67.159 (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But we have no articles for games ending 6-4, 9-1, 7-3 or 5-5 and these have all just happened once. Rarity does not necessarily make something notable. Spike 'em (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a tough call because this was a noteworthy game, especially given the sacking of the Bournemouth manager as an outcome. That said, it is one game in the course of a season, and one game in the lifetime of both clubs. There's a place for extreme outcomes, and it's on each club's page. There's a place for extreme outcomes in a season, and it's the page about the season.

Fooman6817 (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— 2.30.67.159 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep per PeeJay. Giant Snowman 10:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content issue has since been addressed. 2.30.67.159 (talk) 10:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously notable football match. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per PeeJay. Idiosincrático (talk) 11:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. It might be notable in the future but not now. The regurgitation of Sky's propaganda ("much less competitive than the Premier League") is sickening as are the attempts to make this game notable by using a nine year old girl's death. Dougal18 (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per PeeJay and Jonny Nixon. GWA88 (talk) 14:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Rare and notable as the other 9–0 results. MSN12102001 (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So if this gets kept there will be no objections to creating a Dundee United F.C. 0–9 Celtic F.C. article then I take it? Abcmaxx (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And San Marino 0–10 England while we're at it. This is utterly absurd and depressing. The match is self-evidently less relevant to anything than so many other matches, the above "keeps" are just an WP:ILIKEIT obsession with the notion that all 9–0s have to be individually catalogued. If someone later does a 10–0, will we delete them all because they're no longer joint record holders? — Amakuru (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That San Marino game was much more likely to happen because you had a team of part-time players playing against some of the best in the world. In contrast, both Liverpool and Bournemouth are fully professional teams with internationals in their lineup plus this being a Premier League game makes it a lot more unexpected, despite Liverpool being much better on paper. Same applies with the Dundee United v Celtic match, especially when you consider it was the away team that won 9-0, which is much rarer in elite football 86.25.138.179 (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice whataboutism. What makes this unique versus the Scottish result is the level of competition; the Premier League is is almost universally considered one of a handful of top-flight football leagues, to the point where WP:ITNR only regularly posts the league champions of them, the Bundesliga, and La Liga. It’s a special occurrence versus that of a lower league such as the SPL or MLS. The Kip (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and there it is: WP:BIAS. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Call it bias all you want, but it’s the same reason we don’t post the champions of the European League of Football, Mexican League, or Canadian Elite Basketball League. It’s just simply a lower level of competition. The Kip (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...no. Two of those (Mexico and Canada) do not get posted because they're national leagues that do not receive international attention. The ELF is too new; there is not enough precedent, if any. —VersaceSpace 🌃 22:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“National league that does not receive international attention” likewise describes most soccer/football leagues outside of the Big 4 (one of whom, Serie A of Italy, isn’t posted anyways), which would as a result exclude the Scottish Premiership. Thanks for proving my point. The Kip (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attention in the media has absolutely nothing to do with the "level of competition", and I cannot imagine how you came to that conclusion. —VersaceSpace 🌃 00:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To further back my point, UEFA’s 2021-22 league coefficients, which rank the different associations within UEFA, had Scotland at 11th, behind countries such as Serbia, Greece, and Austria. The Kip (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To illustrate a point in the 2014–15 La Liga the following scores occurred:

Biggest home win Real Madrid 9–1 Granada (5 April 2015)

Biggest away win Córdoba 0–8 Barcelona (2 May 2015)

Highest scoring Deportivo La Coruña 2–8 Real Madrid (20 September 2014)

Real Madrid 9–1 Granada (5 April 2015)

Real Madrid 7–3 Getafe (23 May 2015)

None of them have an article; why? That's just one season picked at random. In fact none of the La Liga records have match articles. And you cannot argue supremacy of Premier League over La Liga surely? Abcmaxx (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and there is no Tasmania Berlin 0–9 MSV Duisburg article about the match that happened in 1966. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We already made articles for the other 9–0 Premier League matches. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2022–23 Liverpool F.C. season which would seem the sensible thing to do. Clearly it's a notable match and worthy of mention, but not notable enough for a standaline article. This is Paul (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Everytime one of these happen people get needlessly mad at the article but it's clearly notable. Just because a few people don't feel like it should be notable doesn't make it non-notable. There's just no need for this rigmarole every two years or so. Watercheetah99 (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A single soccer match is unlikely to have long-lasting notability, and this is entirely WP:TRIVIA to anybody who doesn't watch soccer (or even Liverpool). And this being a "record for Liverpool" is a woefully unconvincing reason to keep this. "Only the fourth time" will bring a chuckle to the faces of the uninvolved, if this is kept. —VersaceSpace 🌃 14:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the Liverpool/Bournemouth match is equal in notability to the two more recent matches involving Southampton. The Man Utd/Ipswich match has a reasonable claim to long-lasting notability, as for over 25 years it was a unique feat in the Premier League, and so that article should likely be kept. However, the fact that there have been 9-0 scorelines in the Premier League three times in under two years indicates that such occurences, while still unusual, are becoming more widespread and are less notable. Whether that level of notability meets WP:GNG or not is not clear to me, but if this article is deleted, then the Man Utd/Southampton and Leicester/Southampton ones should be as well. There may be an argument to add those two to this deletion discussion. --RFBailey (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the other articles on 9-0 wins in the premier league, the one from the 90s can show its notability because it has in depth, reliable sources from decades afterward. I do not find credible the keep position that the 4th time such an event happened (and 2nd or 3rd time this year) will be able to generate press 2 weeks in the future, much less 2 years. Everything about the reporting on this game is WP:ROUTINE. Rockphed (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the fact that Bournemouth's manager was sacked three days after the match partly as a result to comments he made in broadcast interviews is something especially noteworthy in regards to it's aftermath 86.25.138.179 (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also the same happened with Dundee United's manager after they lost 9-0 to Celtic, albeit that decision was made due to poor on-pitch performances and results instead of any apparent disagreements with the board 86.25.138.179 (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of highest-scoring Premier League matches#Biggest winning margin. 9-goal wins happen from time-to-time even in top-flight leagues, so the game is not unique for having that margin of victory. If we look at record margins-of-victory across other sports (see Blowout (sports) for examples), almost none of them have individual articles for these specific games (the only games that have articles are a 222-0 American college football which is an extreme and famous storyline, and a 73-0 NFL American football game which happened to be the 1940 NFL Championship game and was notable only for that reason). I believe the three other 9-0 games should be redirected as well (with Manchester United-Ipswich as a possible exception), but that is not the scope of this discussion. Frank Anchor 15:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like an important and significant match. Moondragon21 (talk 17:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both of Southampton's 9-0 defeats have articles. Why shouldn't this? If this is deleted, those should be too. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHER applies here. Their existence is not evidence either for or against deleting this article. I think the sources they use do not show that this game will get the long term coverage that the game from the 90's got, but I am open to somebody proving me wrong. Rockphed (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its not and absurd to say otherwise in the grand scheme of things. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2022–23 Liverpool F.C. season. These scores have become commonplace and do not deserve an entire article.--Sakiv (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The match is notable. Phikia (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per scope_creep. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Phikia17:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWalker31 (talk • contribs)
Keep Other 9-0 premier league wins have articles, and the article is well written and sourced. There is clearly enough information in the article to make it worth keeping. Drinkdrinker (talk) 19:00, 4 September 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 14:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yadavindra Public School, Mohali[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable school. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORG. Reads like an advertisement. The Banner talk 14:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. It is very promotional, and needs citations in many areas. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 22:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to WP:PROMOTION. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:06, 4 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lisette Nieves[edit]

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

There is nothing to indicate notability per the notability guidelines. This is written up like a CV – WP:NORESUMES. Thenightaway (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Women, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ A little bit of coverage, such as [14], some interviews (e.g. [15]), press releases (e.g. [16]), and articles the subject has written (e.g. [17]) isn't quite enough to pass WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the lead of the article she is an academic and leader of a non-profit so WP:PROF applies to her and WP:ORG applies for her non-progit.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see any criteria under which she meets WP:NPROF. I'd also had a look at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Lisette+Nieves&btnG=. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- She does not meet the criteria for WP:NPROF. Just being an academic is not sufficient. The organizations that she has headed don't even have their own WP pages, so it's unclear to me why that lends her notability. Thenightaway (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are things that might lend her notability. I think we should exhaust all the possible avenues that may lend notability before deleting. This article has been around for a while, since 2006, and consistently edited. It would seem that people care enough about it to keep editing it over the years. Another thing that might lend notability is her presidency of Fund for the City of New York. Or her membership of the board at Americorps. These might satisfy Wikipedia:Notability of Local Government Officials.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - The "Fund for the City of New York" does not even have its own WP page, so it's unclear why the person who heads that organization merits a WP page. That this page has existed since 2006 and no substantive RS content has been found/added to the article since then is in my view an indicator of non-notability, rather than an indicator of notability. Thenightaway (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Having or not having its own WP page is not an indicator of non-notability. That it has existed since 2006 and having substantial edits since then is an indicator of long standing relevance regardless of the quality of those edits. On the Americorp membership that i mentioned in the previous comment, turns out she was nominated by POTUS of all people. Being mentioned by name in a white house release strongly suggests possible notability.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Please be aware that the age of the article is not evidence for notability. Please see WP:ARTICLEAGE. Also press releases are not independant sources for notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        You are right, but context matters. This is a white house statement, coming from a government decision, not just any ordinary press release by a company or organisation. On article age I also agree that at some point she did not meet notability, but she did end up achieving notability some time between becoming FCNY president and being appointed by Biden.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete agree, some sources, but not enough, found. Oaktree b (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per her nomination by President Biden. Any presidential nomination is of significant interest to the public and has grounds to have their own article. Also an article for Fund for the City of New York (FCNY), of which she is the president, meets notability and can be created by someone at some point.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 14:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - her nomination to the AmeriCorps board was confirmed by the US Senate in July 2022 (citation added). Previously Barack Obama appointed her to an advisory commission (citation added). I have added in multiple sources covering her position as a Rhodes Scholar (the first from Brooklyn College) and Truman Scholar (though I realize both were early in her career). DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is also confusing because, as the talk page notes, various versions of this page conflate two individuals. One who graduated from Wesleyan and Harvard [18] and one who graduated from Brooklyn College, University of Oxford, Princeton, and University of Pennsylvania. I have removed the information about the Wesleyan/Harvard graduate. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd discounted both those scholar awards as far too early for WP:NPROF, but the coverage of them may count towards WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that this is not really a good case for WP:PROF. But in-depth coverage in multiple sources over a large time range (in particular the New York Times 1991, Daily News 2004, and Latino Leaders 2017) adds up to a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein and per WP:BASIC, and I have also expanded the article with some additional research. Beccaynr (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep striking previous !vote. The additional sources found push it over the line for meeting WP:GNG. The presidential nomination and involvement with FCNY didn't inherently make the subject notable though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:30, 29 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. Per WP:CSK#2, as the nomination was made purely to complain about the subject. All other participants voted keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retroshare[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Hello!

Dear Wikipedia Page Editor Friends!

I think that the Retroshare Wiki-Page is spam and was only made for promotion. Retroshare was already nominated for deletion on Wikipedia before. Now the Retroshare Software is outdated, full of security breaches, etc.

I hope you feel the same about Retroshare! (This is the first page I ever nominated for deletion so I hope it'll work!)

Yours, Maryna Maryna Viazovska (talk) 09:23, 28 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 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject appears notable. Your opinion of the software's quality is not a valid reason to delete. Madeline (_{part of me}) 09:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. People don't just delete information about a subject (Retroshare in this case) because people think that subject is bad now. Pizzawithdirt (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator or others can update the article if they feel it has issues or lacks important information about it such as mentioned in the nomination.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are significant sources available in a simple search of google scholar and google books, not to mention google news. --Mvqr (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has multiple third-party independent sources that support notability. While the article needs improvement as indicated, it should be kept. DecorumForum125 (talk) 21:50, 29 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!} 07:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Victory (punjabi song)[edit]

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

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show it meets WP:GNG. Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 09:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the parent article is likely to be deleted soon so I would oppose redirect/merge. This looks to fail GNG and WP:NSONG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article is updated with at least 2 reliable independent third-party sources that talk about this song.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All we have is some minor listings about how the song was released, and no evidence that it has been noticed. (If this article is kept, its title should be moved to Victory (Sikander Ghuman song). But that probably will not happen and the singer's article is likely to be deleted too at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sikander Ghuman). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . I am just letting you know that I declined the deletion of Victory (punjabi song), a page you tagged for deletion, because of the following concern: This is just not spammy. It's a short bio which is encylopedic, and then a short career history. He may well not be notable, but there's credible indication as president. This is a very famous and popular song of Punjabi language. And this song is very much liked all over the world Millions of people have searched this song on google That's why it was very important to make Wikipedia of this song. I provide you some links related to this song which are available on very big news website. you can see them I urge your Wikipedia editor to remove the deletion notice as soon as possible.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/music/punjabi/watch-latest-punjabi-music-video-song-victory-sung-by-g-human/videoshow/91254178.cms?utm_source=whatsappfloating&utm_medium=social_entertainment&utm_campaign=ETvideoshowicon

Hello, I would like help understanding why my sources are not reliable. These sources are news papers and the subject of my Wikipedia page is focus of all the articles used. Other sources used were direct links to his repertoire. Any advice and assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. IamNasirZaman (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This vote has been copied from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Victory (punjabi song). I reserve making any judgement on this AFD. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The text of your article should be based on at least 2 published texts written about the song by a third party. These need to be texts talking about the song. Texts listing basic information such as when the song was produced and who participated in the music video, without commentary, do not count towards this. Your sources do not need to be in English. You will likely have a better chance finding and including such texts as references if you search in Puunjabi, Urdu or Hindi.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to the author @IamNasirZaman:. So you know to look here.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given his behaviour a ping isn't going to do much of anything. He's not looking to debate us; he's looking to win via argumentum ad nauseam - talkiing at us rather than to us. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and is poorly written. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources are essentially the music videos for this song, which are not acceptable sources. The source proffered on the talk page by Iam is already in the article; the only difference is that the link on the talk page has a referral link. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block the creator as a SOA. This is nothing more than exaggerated vanity spam sourced to the usual suspects engaging in paid pr without identifying it (aka blackhat SEO) PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSONG per nom. Only sources about its music video found in a WP:BEFORE. Even the singer fails WP:MUSICBIO. SBKSPP (talk) 01:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The singer's article has been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sikander Ghuman . If he is not notable, neither is his song. This song article can now be speedy deleted. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At this point this debate's due to wrap up within the day. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 01:47, 4 September 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 under WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prudence Burns Burrell[edit]

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

Aside from an oral history, she is mentioned only as one of a group of forgotten vets. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Military, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC - in addition to the news sources in the article, she is also noted in several books per GBooks, e.g. "one of the first African-American nurses to join the army in World War II" in No Time for Fear: Voices of American Military Nurses in World War II, which includes several pages of her account of service, G.I. Nightingales: The Army Nurse Corps in World War II, includes special thanks for her contributions to the book, Serving Our Country: Japanese American Women in the Military During World War II, provides secondary context for her service, starting at p. 139. Beccaynr (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some additional secondary context for her service is also mentioned in A Woman's Concise Guide to Common Medical Tests at 139-140, her account is published with context at pp. 53-54 in Angels of Mercy: The Army Nurses of World War II, and there is an in-depth description of her service, referring to her both as Prudence Burns Burrell and Lt. Burns in The Story of Black Military Officers, 1861-1948, she is described as an African-American woman serving with distinction at p. 123 in The Columbia Guide to African American History Since 1939, her Veterans' History Project of the Library of Congress Interview Transcript is cited in the Bibliography of Double Victory: How African American Women Broke Race and Gender Barriers to Help Win World War II, and she is mentioned in context for leading a recruitment effort in Recruiter Journal: Volume 47. Beccaynr (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr. Beyond the adequate sourcing in the article already, she was featured as the primary topic in multiple news stories with a quick ebsco search:

"World War II Nurse Recounts Struggles, Rewards of Career." Michigan Chronicle, May 10, 1995. [19].
Burrell, Hugh. "God has Taken Care of Prudence Burrell." Michigan Chronicle, Jan, 2007. [20].
Burrell, Hugh. "Black U.S. Army Nurse Saluted." Michigan Chronicle, May, 2008. [21].
Marriage announcement in a newspaper [22]
"Museum pays tribute to black soldiers", Marysville Appeal Democrat Newspaper Archives October 22, 2000 Page 22 [23]. (Article is about the general topic but she is mentioned by name multiple times and is the pull photo.)

Skynxnex (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to Recruiter Journal she wasn't "only one of a group of forgotten vets", but rather she led the effort to recruit Black nurses. pburka (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources clearly demonstrate notability.--Ipigott (talk) 09:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I wrote this and put it out there just based on the sources I already had which passed GNG, but now there's even more great work added to the article! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:43, 1 September 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!} 07:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ebony Mystique[edit]

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

Subject doesn’t in any way meets WP:GNG. Gabriel^t@lk 07:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gabriel^t@lk 07:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sexuality and gender. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. Notability is barely asserted (A7), and much of that claim is by inheritance. No significant independent RS coverage cited or found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I find are press releases by Xbix. Oaktree b (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Comment May meet WP:PORN BIO on the 2nd criteria, given she won the Best Curve Appeal Movie award according to the article, there is a possibility of notability there on the grounds that the project that she received that award for Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Someone should look further into her projects to exhaust the possibility of notability there.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The films she appeared in won the awards. AVN credits such awards to the producers and directors. Claims of meeting WP:ENT or WP:ANYBIO criteria need support from independent reliable sources than can verify such uniqueness, innovation, etc. WP:PORNBIO was deprecated as a stand-alone SNG back in 2019, as porn awards are generally not strong evidence of notability. Appeals to criterion ENT#2 based on porn awards always fail without additional evidence. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, now I see that she was one of 5 actors to appearing in the winning film, and that the director of that film was one of those actors as well, however that director is not her. --PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on the explanation/sources explained by Gene93K. Appears to have made a unique contribution to a field of "entertainment", I suppose the adult film industry is a form of entertainment; form of media let's say. Oaktree b (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What in my comments above shows any evidence to support a WP:ENT claim? The independent sources have little to say about this performer. Here are the sources. 1. Announcement in XBIZ (not independent) 2. Interview in AVN (not independent) 3. IMDb citation to support filmography 4. Nominations roster for a minor porn award - one of 10 nominees (even the old PORNBIO SNG deprecated this many years ago). 5. Awards database entry for winning film, where performer is listed in the cast. There is no substantial independent coverage about the subject. As a porn award does not even distinguish the film as notable per WP:NFILM. The database entry is promotional in tone with a link to its sales partner. There is very little to establish the Ms. Mystique's contributions as remarkable, never mind unique. • Gene93k (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing anything that makes her notable. The award seems insignificant and was awarded to the movie itself and not her, and saying she's made any "unique contributions" to the field is really stretching it. If that changes (since she's still active) then the page can be recreated. More sources are needed as well, to help substantiate notability. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 12:46, 2 September 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 Pandan, Antique#Barangays. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Botbot, Pandan[edit]

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

Unlikely to be a notable barangay in the province of Antique. The outstanding history of this and the accompanying redirect Botbot means AfD is the best approach. The article lacks decent sources that prove Botbot, Pandan's notability. All 5 sources used are just listings of statistics (four of them are Philippine Statistics Authority sources). There are no reliable, secondary sources that would prove the notability of this barangay.

For transparency, I redirected "Botbot" to "Botbot, Pandan," as there is another barangay of the same name in a different municipality of the same province. Then HueMan1 redirected it to Pandan, Antique, but Brencarpio, the page creator, reverted it. After some more reverts, Brencarpio removed Botbot's redirect and recreated the article there, and this title was made as a redirect. This complicated history means AfD is the best approach, as such AfD is to be made here so that the AfD notice is sent to the article creator instead of the Botbot redirect creator (which is me). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pandan, Antique fails WP:GNG. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pandan,_Antique#Barangays as per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pandan, Antique#Barangays. Fails WP:GEOLAND per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:28, 31 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 13:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Price[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:23, 21 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!} 06:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BEFORE search only brings the usual database hits. BilletsMauves^€500 11:21, 28 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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Osmond, Newfoundland and Labrador[edit]

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

No sources and just a vague one-sentence description. Searching the Newfoundland and Labrador website brings up one mention of an Osmond Point.[24] That is all. Google Maps shows a whole lot of nothing much.[25] Clarityfiend (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are indicators that this was--and may still be--a populated place:

Government-published listings for this place included [26] and [27].
In this source, search for "Osmond" and there is text about how several Osmonds would spend summers living in cottages along Little Barachois lake. The cottages are visible on Google satellite view.
Osmond Point Cemetery is located here; this author writing "there was about 12 cabins. All of the cabins belong to 'Osmonds' so they call this area, 'Osmond Point'."
Many of the graves in the cemetery, such as Harriet Osmond, have "Osmond" listed as the place of death. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but expand Place clearly exists and may even still be populated. The length however cannot be justified, the article needs to be expanded to meed WP:GNF and WP:V N1TH Music (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@N1TH Music: - What's "WP:GNF"? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typo, I meant GNG N1TH Music (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@N1TH Music: What does the article length have to do with GNC and V? I've tried to establish that this is a legally recognized populated place, but I don't think the article is going to be expanded much more, unless someone has a source with more detail about this place. Would you change your ivote to "delete" if the article cannot be expanded? Magnolia677 (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, if the article cannot be improved, it doesn't mean it must be deleted, it's passable. But we should look for more sources. Also WP:GNG states that significant coverage is necessary. N1TH Music (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The settlement was also a stop on the Newfoundland Railway, see [28]]. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the history section, and added the article to WP:CAN10K. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:08, 23 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!} 06:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this unsourced one-liner of an article has since been expanded significantly with supporting sources. Nothing seen on Google Maps is not sufficient rationale to delete. The new History section clearly explains what it once was and why there is nothing much seen there nowadays. Hwy43 (talk) 06:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is about a place that, based on the multiple references from independent sources now included, appears very much to be a real place. - David Stargell (talk) 02:29, 2 September 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 Southern Combination Football League. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rottingdean Village F.C.[edit]

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

Non notable football club that has never played higher than level 11 of the English FA pyramid. Fails GNG as lacks multiple reliable sources than are other than passing mentions. Nthep (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nthep (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Southern Combination Football League; not independently notable. Giant Snowman 09:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Southern Combination Football League per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As suggested above. The club is not currently notable enough to have an article of its own, but it makes sense to redirect the page to the league it plays in. Dunarc (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Southern Combination Football League Lightburst (talk) 02:42, 4 September 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 04:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne E. Litt[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Being one of 23 Lost writers who jointly won the WGA Award isn't all that impressive. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 21 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!} 05:24, 28 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. Subject seems to have workable coverage even though he did not win on Survivor. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Fishbach[edit]

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

Lacks notability; competed on, but did not win, Survivor. Bgsu98 (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York. Bgsu98 (talk) 02:29, 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!} 02:39, 14 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!} 03:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: This seems, like, just over the line to me as a GNG pass. Could easily be convinced the other way, but this is clearly SIGCOV, and this is borderline SIGCOV? Plus this New York Times wedding announcement, which is a little routine but whatever, and the fact that he has a recurring blog on People's website. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first two are both from Entertainment Weekly so, for notability purposes, they count as a single source. I agree this is borderline. I'm undecided which side of the border. ~Kvng (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the referenced sources are not all from that one moment in time when he was on TV but some time later. There are older and newer sources. This indicates that this person is still being "noted" over a long period of time.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:11, 28 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) Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 21:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sonya Kelly[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SNG. No mention of notability, just a list of some plays. ~~This has previously been deleted.~~ Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Theatre. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Searches find an extensive range of reviews of the subject's plays, particularly "The Last Return" which won an award in Edinburgh this month. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dr_vulpes, the nomination mentions a previous deletion, but I am not seeing anything in the Logs; was this under a different article title? AllyD (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @AllyD, I went looking and I can't find anything. It came up on my NPP tools when I was reviewing, do you see what I'm seeing? Here's a screenshot from my end. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The newpagesfeed does sometimes seem a bit enthusiastic in the Previously deleted text in the heading; it is usually correct, but other times I can't work out whether it is using soundalikes or something. AllyD (talk) 07:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be safe and fair I crossed out the bit on it being previously deleted. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I was surprised to see the suggestion for deletion. If living Irish playwrights are a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article, and there must be many such articles, then surely Sonya Kelly would be one such. She has definitely made a name for herself and her awards would underscore this. International awards as in the case of the Edinburgh Fringe Festival. I had just made a start and intended to return and do an awards section. I appreciate the extra work that AllyD has done in that regard. Aineireland (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - double award-winning playwright, satisfies WP:ANYBIO (1) and WP:AUTHOR. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New additions and edits have enough reliable references to pass WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Thanks you AllyD for all the improvements you made and great sources you found for this article. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:59, 28 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 10:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardo Cariata[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Angola. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep noteable international footballer that played in Primeira Liga (Portugal), Chinese and Angolan first divisions, and in England. Some coverage 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. None of the articles exclusively focus on him, but I think they give reasonable coverage, and there would have been tons more that is not archived anymore.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Club website which lacks independence of Cariata. The article also rips off the Dorset Echo source. Source 2 is a blog which are banned from use on BLP's. Source 3 is a namedrop. Source 4 I can't read the full story. Source 5 is another namedrop. Source 6 is routine transfer coverage and source 7 is a mention in a match report. Dougal18 (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Sources above not good enough. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:48, 22 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!} 05:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @Ortizesp:. Also he definitely has offline sources, as well as Chinese ones, having had an extensive pro and international career in the 1990s and early 2000s. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor above has said that these sources are not of good quality; what's your opinion on this? Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, source analysis by Dougal18 showcases that there is not sufficient coverage for this person to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Dougal's source analysis. Routinely linking non-independent and unreliable sources as evidence of GNG is disruptive. JoelleJay (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only sources giving him more than a trivial mention are non-independent or unreliable websites so clearly this footballer lacks significant coverage in WP:RS Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 4 September 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 23:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Calcutta Premier Division A[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS and per WP:NOTDATABASE. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and India. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Against deletion enough sources to confirm the validity of the page. Here's one- https://int.soccerway.com/national/india/calcutta-premier-division/20132014/regular-season/r23529/tables/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.226.170 (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, the above source contains no prose and is useless for notability. Avilich (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me what's not useless for notability? I'll try to find it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.226.170 (talk) 11:56, 24 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!} 05:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Calcutta Football League warrants its own article but there is absolutely no evidence that this particular season needs its own separate entry Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 28 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 05:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vaishnavi Patil[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Sources are not reliable or are just passing in mention. Page is not complete. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and India. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:GNG. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 05:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:GNG. Imsaneikigai

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Toe (band). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Book About My Idle Plot on a Vague Anxiety[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Couldn't find significant coverage. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Japan. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this article being considered for deletion? Especially given the album’s status in the math rock genre and that the rest of Toe’s discography has been written on Wikipedia. Does this mean the rest of their discographys’ wiki pages should be considered for deletion? Please provide me with some logic here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevsLost (talk • contribs) 07:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear if Fecking Bahamas [29] is a reliable site staffed by legitimate music journalists and editors, as opposed to a site for math rock fans to talk about albums they like. See WP:RS. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Toe (band). Their later albums got some reliable reviews, but this one received little notice when it was released and later appeared in some bloggy retro lists from genre enthusiasts. As stated in the lead, it did appear on a list of best math rock albums of all time, but that list is not a particularly reliable source. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Toe (Band), @Doomsdayer520 makes a good point and I think the Toe article needs a few more sources but since there was coverage of their last album that shouldn't be too hard. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 17:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toe (band). Fails WP:NALBUM per above arguments. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond Fecking Bahamas, which is reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:32, 31 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!} 04:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colemans Mill Crossing, Virginia[edit]

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

Searches for "Coleman's Mill" and "Coleman's Mill Crossing" returned references to a mill, mill pond and railroad station, not a community. Insufficient SIGCOV to establish notability under GNG or GEOLAND. –dlthewave ☎ 04:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Virginia. –dlthewave ☎ 04:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. I can't find anything to suggest notability either. Per WP:GEOLAND - insufficient sources to build an encylopaedia article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:36, 28 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!} 04:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crownover Mill, Ohio[edit]

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

Sources describe this location as a mill, not an unincorporated community, and it lacks significant coverage to establish notability under GEOLAND or GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 03:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Ohio. –dlthewave ☎ 03:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. I can't find anything to suggest notability either. Per WP:GEOLAND - insufficient sources to build an encylopaedia article. even if an unincoprorated community (and evidence is lacking) it would still need sufficient sources to make an article possible or else the treatment should be different. In any case, it appears to be confusion in this case and it appears to just be the mill. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GEOLAND. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:12, 28 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!} 04:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reedy Mill, Virginia[edit]

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

This appears to just be the site of a former mill. Although some newspaper coverage mentions people being from Reedy Mill or nearby, there isn't enough evidence to verify that this was actually a community and not enough coverage to meet SIGCOV. –dlthewave ☎ 03:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Virginia. –dlthewave ☎ 03:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. The newspaper evidence could be used to argue it is a place that lacks legal recognition, but then it still requires case by case consideration of the sources per WP:GEOLAND - in this case there are just insufficient sources or significant coverage to build an encylopaedia article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:40, 28 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!} 04:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mill Creek, Albemarle County, Virginia[edit]

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

Subdivision fails GEOLAND and GNG due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 03:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Virginia. –dlthewave ☎ 03:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - searches for significant coverage are hampered by the name which gets various false hits to other creeks where there are mills mentioned. A mention her [30] appears to suggest some history though - but Google won't show me the preview and open library does not have it. The page is a stub, and it is not clear the creator knew anything about the place when the page was created, or else surely something would have been said. I will try to come back to this one later with a bit more research, but my inclination at this stage is that delete is not harmful and probably beneficial to the project. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy, I was able to access that source and it actually mentions a different Mill Creek in Botecourt County. –dlthewave ☎ 12:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mass-produced junk made without any verification of the place's potential status as a community or notability. Reywas92^Talk 03:49, 29 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 nominator wants to create a redirect from this title, please go ahead. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shepherd of the Lakes Lutheran School[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG and WP:NORG (if that applies). 3 removed blank and redirects in history. Asking for consensus to redirect. Justi yaya 02:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Michigan. Justi yaya 02:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The nom wants to redirect, but does not say where. What we have is a one line article saying that the school exists. It is not a High School, so that not keeping the article would be the normal outcome. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previously (before attempted article creation) the page was a redirect to Brighton, Michigan, deleting also makes sense I guess, not very familiar with Schools at AFD. Should've probably looked into it more before writing the nom statement. Justi yaya 15:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:SCH, as not notable, elementary/middle school. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As there hasn't be a good source added in a decade and the current article fails the standards (both accepted conventions and policies) mentioned above. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:39, 28 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!} 04:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Depot, Iowa[edit]

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

Non-notable railroad yard mislabeled as a community. –dlthewave ☎ 01:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and Iowa. –dlthewave ☎ 01:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this isn't a community, it's Union Pacific's Beverly Yard [31]. The yard may be notable, though I didn't find many sources for it from a brief glance. Regardless, "Beverly Depot" is definitely not notable. If someone thinks there's an article to be had on the yard, that would be under the title Beverly Yard. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Andre🚐 03:22, 28 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 Bemani. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martial Beat[edit]

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

Tagged for years. Google search delivers only the usual things--mentions, websites, proof of existence, but no significant discussion. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Andre🚐 03:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bemani series of rhythm games by Konami Andre🚐 04:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bemani - I was unable to find anything about this game on Archive.org other than passing mentions in trade show coverage (1, 2), a brief mention in EGM, and a brief mention of its sequel, Martial Beat 2, in Soft World Magazine's November 2002 issue on page 218, no significant coverage. Waxworker (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's way more than I found - pretty impressive digging. Andre🚐 02:45, 29 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 Mister International. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mister International 2022[edit]

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

Non-notable pageant, only sources are the organizers' own web site and social media. ... discospinster _talk 00:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Philippines. ... discospinster _talk 00:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mister International. BD2412 T 01:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft for now as WP:TOOSOON. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mister International as the page contents is currently WP:TOOSOON. "Recreate or remake" again if sufficient sources is available. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mister International as WP:TOOSOON. SBKSPP (talk) 01:26, 31 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.