< December 20	December 22 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consider this a modified soft-delete per Acebulf's excellent commentary below. Daniel (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Louise Skourlis[edit]

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

Slightly confusing one. I don't know who this person is, but she did not win the beauty pageant that her article claims. Most of the listed sources are either unreliable, not independent, or dead links. Unless I am being really stupid, this is possibly a hoax? Jdcooper (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Greece. Jdcooper (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I spent a little over two hours investigating what exactly is happening here. It's incredibly confusing. From what I gather, there are some news articles internal to the Greek-American community that claim that she's won those contests, despite the winners being clearly identified as someone else. I don't view these sources as reliable. It's claimed from the same outlets publishing later that she won something called "Ms. Supermodel USA-Petite", which is not something I've been able to verify actually exists. I tried to wrap my head around how pagents works, and there's like 100 of them that are named almost exactly the same thing. I'm wondering if she hasn't won one of the not-glamorous ones, but that is named closely enough to the famous one that it was confused by the people making the news articles? This would make sense given that the external link to the (now defunct) pageant website isn't the same website as the famous competition that is Wikilinked.

The most credible source I found was TMZ, which mentions it in passing. [1] This is not good omen for the credibility of the other sources.

The only things I've managed to ascertain with some certainty is that she didn't win the contest that is linked internally, and that no official records of her winning any beauty pageants can be found. I'm left to conclude that this person exists, but has never won a competition that would make her notable. There exists next to no reliable sources, no authoritative ones, and if we exclude community-interest stories, no actual description of the person that is sourced at all.

Given how late in the debate my incursion is, I'm likely to be the last to comment before someone gets to closing or redirecting for more discussion. I don't view this deletion as being controversial and as such, I would recommend treating this outcome as a successful PROD so that people don't lose even more time going down this rabbit hole. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Featherston Drive Public School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/J. H. Putman Public School

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

Fails GNG and NSCHOOL. Couldnt find anything about the school besides when a 4yr old girl was ran over at the school this. Original research is on this article from the facilities to the programs to the clubs. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 03:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Canada. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 03:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article was part of a previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. H. Putman Public School, so it is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For many years we didn't keep elementary schools absent more than the usual sources. There was a good reason. This one IMO fails GNG. Jacona (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Mehta[edit]

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

Person does not appear to be notable. Only item appears to be the Sasketchewan Centennial Medal, but that seems to be widespread (4200 recipients).Spiralwidget (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not much of anything for sources found, staff listings at the university.Oaktree b (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Geography. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. One triple-digit-citation publication ("From biotechnology to nanotechnology") is not enough to convince me of WP:PROF#C1, and head of a school within a university is not a high enough administrative position for #C6. The most likely path for notability would seem to be his book publications; I found one authored book Risky Business: Nuclear Power and Public Protest in Canada (review: ProQuest 218816023) and two edited volumes Environmental Sociology: Theory and Practice (group review: doi:10.2307/591614) and Nanotechnology: Risk, Ethics and Law (reviews: doi:10.1177/1075547007302696 and [2]). But with only one of these authored and only one review of it, it's not enough to convince me of WP:AUTHOR notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per David Eppstein. I only found one additional review for Risky Business (doi:10.2307/3552366) so WP:AUTHOR does not seem to be met. Found some passing mentions through Gnews but no real significant coverage. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per David Eppstein and Presidentman. Additional references might be out there, but my feeling is that they are not. It's a fine line, maybe there are. I may userfy this to try and see if there are any more in the future. But I think the statements already made are accurate and I cannot dispute them. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:19, 28 December 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. Whether indexes are useful generally or not, the consensus of the discussion is that this particular one is not. RL0919 (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Index of World War II articles[edit]

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

I am nominating this page and the related pages of indexes because this group of articles fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NLIST. The very wide range of topics presented here are very loosely connected and never discussed as a group or set in any sources. While this type of index might be useful to house internally within user space or a relevant WikiProject, I am not seeing any relevant notability policy for keeping this in main space. Further, this index has very little use as a navigational tool as there are no descriptions of the items in the list to present context on how they relate to WWII, and in a few cases I am not even sure they should be in the index. For example, I came upon this index looking at the incoming wikilinks going to a biography on Walter Graf (bobsledder) which had zero content on WWII. This was perhaps linked to the wrong article, but it doesn't give me much confidence in a list with zero contextualizing text for its entries. 4meter4 (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages which are part of this index:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete aside from being a directory, I struggle to think of how this could actually be useful to a reader. Categories already serve this function and have about as much context as well, if not more. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed completely. QuintinK (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in addition to the notability issues I raised in the nomination I too am struggling to see any practical use for this index either. The index provides zero context to the articles, and the reader has no idea why a given individual topic is necessarily in the index and in what way it connects to the war. As such, the list fails to orient the reader in any meaningful way to the topic of World War II; including the practicalities of navigating World War II articles across the encyclopedia. Further, providing a lengthy list of terms in alphabetical order without context seems to me by definition a violation of WP:NOT. It reads like the phone book. It has zero referencing and while it claims to only encompass articles related to World War II there are a large number of articles on this list about topics that happened after the end of the war, or on subjects which are not primarily about World War II. This is why an article like Outline of World War II is a far better organization scheme for a World War II navigation list because it places articles in context to the topic. Providing context makes it possible for readers to quickly find the relevant content they are looking for, in addition to providing an overview of the content area. Not to mention that type of list passes WP:NLIST. To add to this, we also have many other World War II lists of varying kinds which are linked in the WWII outline, and a whole category tree for WWII articles. All of these are superior to this inaccurate, unreferenced, and difficult to navigate index.4meter4 (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A few procedural notes regarding WP:Indexes. There doesn't appear to be a consensus on whether or not index articles are valid. In AfD/Index of Babylon 5 articles and AfD/Index of computing articles and AfD/Index of breakfast-related articles, which resolved to keep, several editors argued that WP:CLN establishes support for indexes; in particular, one editor argued that "Categories are quite inadequate, because they do not support citations and their tree structure does not work well with multiple independent keywords. Indexes are a traditional way of navigating reference works and so it is quite reasonable that we should support them".
Conversely, in AfD/Index of Brazil-related articles and AfD/Index of Romania-related articles, which both resolved to delete and redirection to their respective WP:Outline, editors argued that indexes are incompletable due to our scope compared to a paper encyclopedia and that a broad overview of the topic is better suited to the outline. Indeed, Outline of World War II does exist. Curbon7 (talk) 23:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Curbon7 for this useful summation.4meter4 (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In 2015, I estimated 20% of the linked articles are irrelevant to World War II, which hasn't been fixed since then. See Talk:Index of World War II articles. Art LaPella (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If ever there was a case for WP:TNT this is it. It seems these indexes were created by an automated search programme back in 2008 and have hardly been touched since. I guess finding Nazi or for example 1939 in an article resulted in its inclusion in the index with no human checking resulting in many non WWII articles being included. If anyone sees merit in having such a general index they can recreate it manually adding only appropriate articles Lyndaship (talk) 07:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indexes are rarely helpful to readers, especially when they are this large, as we have a search bar, categories, outline, and many other articles and lists that cover these topics and which aid in navigation more effectively. I don't think the green quotation is valid at all. They are a traditional way to navigate paper reference works, our indexes virtually never have (or need) citations, and other navigation methods are better, particularly if there are many thousands of items. Reywas92^Talk 15:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I clicked on one of the lists at random: the letter M. The number of entries was 1530. I daresay that makes this way too broad per WP:SALAT. I am at a complete loss as to what WP:LISTPURPOSE this is meant to serve. TompaDompa (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too broad and incomplete. Outline of World War II does a much better, more restrictive job. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:14, 23 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radical love (social psychology)[edit]

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

Lots of people use the term "radical" as a rhetorical device because it makes the topic of discussion sound more interesting and distinctive. In this case, it is not apparent to me that any of the cited authors are in a continuity of tradition developing "radical love" as a shared concept. The primary use discussed, by Gómez, does not appear to be notable. Daask (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not clearly notable, when I did a scholar search I found too many articles using this in different ways.Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 15:21, 28 December 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Najib Razak controversies[edit]

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

This page violates WP:POV and WP:BLP, and the split from Najib Razak was done without discussion or consensus. Although it's possible a page could exist for a politician, as with Controversies surrounding Silvio Berlusconi, at present these controversies can fit more readily into the existing page for Najib Razak, in agreement with WP:CRIT. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 12:17, 30 November 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 November 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FAFO. Bearian (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Informative article, checks all the checkboxes. I would say it isn't violating anything.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 07:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems well-sourced, GNG is met. Was expecting this to be a list, but it actually has prose and describes each "event", looks ok to me. The split seems fine, this describes in some detail each item. I think it would make the main article too bulky to have kept it all there. The split was ok. Oaktree b (talk) 19:49, 21 December 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 Military awards and decorations of Bangladesh. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sangsadia Nirbachan 1991[edit]

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

Non notable military medal. There is no/zero significant coverage in reliable sources about this medal. Fails WP:GNG.

I am sorry but it looks like article creator mass creating 1-2 lines article about every military medal given by Bangladesh. For the same reason above, I am also nominating following:

Army Efficiency Medal (Bangladesh Army) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Army Medal of Excellence (Bangladesh Army) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Army Medal of Glory (Bangladesh Army) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Distinguished Service Medal (Bangladesh Army) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Extraordinary Service Medal (Bangladesh Army) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Army Medal (Bangladesh Army) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bir Durjoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bir Chiranjib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bir Mrittunjoee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bir Sorbottam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Uttoron Padak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mahaplaban Padak 1996 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nirapattya Padak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Border Guard Bangladesh Padak (Service) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
President Border Guard Padak (Service) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
President Border Guard Padak (Bravery) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Border Guard Bangladesh Padak (Bravery) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sangsadia Nirbachan 2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bangladesh Police Medal (Bravery) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bi-Centennial Padak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Naf Padak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sangsadia Nirbachan 1996 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sangsadia Nirbachan 1991 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mahaplaban Padak 1998 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ghurnijhar 1991 Padak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Plaban 1988 Padak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dabanal Padak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Songbidhan Padak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Silver Jubilee Medal (Bangladesh Armed Foces) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Golden Jubilee Medal (Bangladesh Army) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jesthata Padak I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jesthata Padak II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jesthata Padak III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mukti Taroka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rono Taroka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Joy Padak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Samar Padak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(IMO, all of them should be merge into Orders, decorations, and medals of Bangladesh or Military awards and decorations of Bangladesh) আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone finds any significant coverage in reliable sources to any of the above-mentioned articles, I will be happy to withdraw that from above list. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is why large bundles like this are typically frowned upon; it is a herculean effort to research 38 (I counted) different articles in two different languages (English and Bangla). Next time please stick to a max of ~5-10 per bundle. Curbon7 (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Military awards and decorations of Bangladesh per nom. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can help with Merge. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree with a Merge. I highly doubt that any of these would fail GNG, even if citations may be hard to find online. Between the original creation of the medal by the government and local coverage of people receiving these types of awards, there is certainly reliable sourcing for these somewhere out there. But until one of these ends up with an ungainly list of notable recipients, or something truly extraordinary happens with the visibility of one of these awards, they are all good candidates for the general article on Bangladeshi medals and separate articles will only make this content more difficult to maintain. Van Isaac, GHTV^cont_WpWS 01:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Military awards and decorations of Bangladesh per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tangail Poura Uddan[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill city park without significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources, so fails WP:GNG. The single cited source makes only passing mention of it. Searches in English and Bengali found other passing mentions of one event or another being held in the park, but only one source that is any deeper, a verbose article that boils down to some people protested when four 50-year-old trees were cut down to widen an access road.[3] If that's all anyone has written about the park, it would be better to cover it in the article about the municipality, Tangail.

Reluctant to redirect there because it isn't clear that Tangail Poura Uddan is even a common English-language name for the park. The cited source calls it Shaheed Smrity Poura Uddan, other sources call it Tangail Municipal Park. Worldbruce (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some reports such as this [4] refer to Shaheed Smriti Pouro Udyan. Google street view shows a stage within a park or open space. Reviews and photos state it's a meeting place, rallies/concerts are held, there is a memorial and busts of seven martyrs of the 1971 War of Independence (can be seen in the background on Google street view, here [5]) and there are tea shops. I suppose a desciption could be made from this but it's a primary source. I don't believe it rates a standalone article owing to lack of reliable, verified, secondary sources. Newspaper coverage is about the rallies held there not the park itself e.g. [6]. Any material could easily be added to the Tangail article, which already has a Parks section. Rupples (talk) 02:30, 22 December 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!} 21:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Veeskhanam[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Can't find any reliable and independent source in internet. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The spelling should be "Veekshanam" or "Vikshanam". Thincat (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find any reliable source with different spelling. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete UPE with no hint of RS coverage. That it's the official newspaper of Indian_National_Congress does not match what's on the latter's website, and not a viable redirect given that, transliteration issues raised by Thincat. Star Mississippi 19:15, 21 December 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Ariffin[edit]

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

Non-notable model. Very minor roles as an actress. Best known for her relationship with Duncan Sheik, but notability is not inherited. Mooonswimmer 17:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. I overlooked the HerWorld coverage. Mooonswimmer 17:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Moved to Draft space despite this ongoing AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funhaven[edit]

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

Article about a company that doesn't meet atleast WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Zero reliable sources present, initially deleted as being too promotional, then later moved to draft and now re-created again in mainspace. Should probably WP:SALT. Jamiebuba (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, this is promotional. Some scattered coverage over the years [7] and [8], but that's about all I can find. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
G11 Speedy Delete I tagged the article with a G11 speedy, the article is so promotional even if this company is notable it needs a WP:TNT. Jumpytoo Talk 21:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This has been draftified, so now the AfD is probably moot. However, it's still blatantly promotional and I'd prefer a speedy deletion under G11. VickKiang (talk) 08:08, 22 December 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) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bailey's Taproom[edit]

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

There doesn't appear to be much in the way of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to show the subject meets WP:NCORP. What coverage there is appears to be strictly local. Searches on google and newspapers.com did not provide anything useful to add to the article. Note:This was recently the subject of a mass AfD that failed for procedural reasons rather than notability reasons. Jacona (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Oregon. Jacona (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with nom, only local coverage found, about it closing. One of the many hundreds of places that closed during/due to covid. Nothing terribly notable about this one to differentiate it from others. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last AfD discussion closed just hours ago, but I'll roll up my sleeves and see what I can do here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, gotta take a break but with some help from others, the article now has approximately 40 sources from newspapers, magazines, and books. There's still more work needed (see ongoing Talk page discussions) but I'm ready to vote strong keep per GNG already. Also worth noting, the article currently mentions very little about attached sibling establishment The Upper Lip (sometimes called Bailey's Upper Lip). More information should be added about this business, too, in my opinion, so please keep in mind when assessing coverage. I'm not sure why there's a rush to delete this entry, and the topic's clearly notable. There's enough coverage in a wide variety of reputable publications to flesh out an article with description, operational history, and reception sections. (Finally, please note I'm trying my best here while being drowned in deletion nominations recently. Not whining, just saying.) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources added meet NCORP's WP:AUD, including NYT and U.S.News and World Report entries. And just to mention the obvious, the Pulitzer Prize winning Oregonian qualifies as a regional source, being the second largest newspaper in the Pacific Northwest by circulation, with statewide coverage. Kudos to Another Believer for the WP:HEY save.— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lets examine the first block of references, since the article on this dead company has been significantly updated.

Ref 1 [9] Trade reference. Page 26. Dated 26 Apr 2016
Ref 2 [10] From press-release.
Ref 3 [11] Profile reference. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. From 2014. The bar is not in the current book.
Ref 4 [12] Profile reference. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. From 2014.
Ref 5 [13] Passing mention. Where to go for a pint, clickbait.
Ref 6 [14] Profile
Ref 7 Unable to see it
Ref 8 [15] Profile.
Ref 9 [16] Profile.
Ref 10 [17] Routine annoucement of closure. February 2021
Ref 11. Two short paragraphs fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Dated October 2021
Ref 12 Login page.

All these are dated when the company was still existing. NOT a single reference is available post the organisation that exists to prove it lasting cultural impact. It is merely a typical average boozer that can find anywhere on any road on the planet and once gone will be completly forgotten. The only reason its on here is due to spurious clickbait review culture that exists, the mass spreading press-releases for paid advertising that is a function of the current internet. In 5 years time, people will even struggle to remember it existed. It is no historical, cultural, or artistic existance beyond what it had when it was in business. It is non-notable. Lastly, Wikipedia is not a directory of dead businesses that have no encyclopeadic value. There is many other venue, that are much suitable for that. scope_creep^Talk 09:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, I am again baffled by your assertion an article fails to meet the criterion, "NOT a single reference is available post the organisation that exists to prove it lasting cultural impact." Where in our guidelines is current evidence of "significant cultural impact" mentioned as a requirement for notability? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Searching "Bailey's Taproom" at Lexis yields 108 returns, including dozens of articles published by the Portland Business Journal, The Oregonian, and the Daily Journal of Commerce, among others. I've shared a number of these on the article's talk page but there are many more requiring review. There are a number of international publications but I'm inclined to assume most of these are passing mentions in travel guides of Portland and/or duplicates of other publications. I can't share URLs so others may need to login for source assessment. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep there is WP:SIGCOV and WP:NTEMP Lightburst (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, article can clearly be improved. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's already been enough non-local reliable sourcing added in the last 2 days to make this one a clear "Keep". The establishment easily meets WP:GNG. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passed WP:GNG and WP:42, and at this point this is a behavior discussion and not an editorial discussion. At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon#AfD_/_PROD article creator AB makes a case which I interpret to be a misconduct compliant. Anyone can AfD this again later, but for now, default to keep for misconduct concerns. There is no reason to nominate this many articles, all from the same person, when discussion is already well-attended and fruitful, during an English Wikipedia holiday season, when the article creator has been posting "please leave me alone" to multiple deletion nominations. There are enough sources here to presume editorial integrity; if there is a problem then raise it again at a reasonable pace after a reasonable amount of time. The AfD process should not be available for use by a nominator who fails to address another editor's request to be left alone. I am not accusing the AfD nominator here; misconduct can be an error and not intentional. I am just saying cool it, slow down, and regroup with some moderator guidance. The conduct problem is a barrier to legitimate discussion here. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Bluerasberry, Excuse me. here are the articles I've nominated "recently". As you can see, This is the first article I've nominated in months, out of a total of three in 2022. You are accusing me of misconduct, whether by error or intentional and telling me to cool it, slow the pace. I'm sorry, how is nominating one of this editors articles ever, and a grand total of three articles in a year an unreasonable pace? What on earth are you talking about? — Jacona (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Jacona, I'll let Bluerasberry speak on their behalf, but I think this discussion is the outlier in a group of similar restaurant articles being nominated for deletion by another editor. Bluerasberry may have come to this discussion from the list of deletion nominations at WikiProject Oregon, or even my talk page, where you'll see a long series of notifications (which I've mostly collapsed for readability purposes). I could see how Bluerasberry might have overlooked the correct nominator here (I'll even take the blame for not differentiating nominators over at WP:ORE; my goal was to focus on the content and not the editors). My frustration with this particular nomination was only being given a few hours after this AfD discussion ended to make improvements, but you're not the one drowning me in nominations. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacona: Sorry, not you, just a lot happening right now. I apologize for putting you on the spot to explain yourself and react. That was my error. I apologize. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry Perhaps you could strike out which part of your above comment does not apply here? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:35, 24 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vry Afrikaner Movement[edit]

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

The sources of this article are blogs and primary midia, the show almost no result if searched on the internet, only wiki pages. This seems to be a propaganda movement fueled through wikipedia JoaquimCebuano (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 21 December 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 December 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with above waddie96 ★ (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a notable movement by any means and has no GNGAsk me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 15:25, 28 December 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) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hipi[edit]

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

None of the news is significant to prove notability. Lordofhunter (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Software, and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

totally agree 77.251.59.79 (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hipi is One of the largest platforms like Likee, TikTok, Triller (app)...etc. for content creators. Articl has numerous sources which has significantly covered it and many sources available onlineJasmin dsilva (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I request you to share sources, being largest doesn't make it notable. Lordofhunter (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the largest platforms like Likee, TikTok, Triller (app)...etc. for content creators- WP:POPULARITY, being largest does not mean that notability is met, which is what is being evaluated here. many sources available online- can you link any that meet SIGCOV? Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Can found many reliable news sources about the subject which can pass WP:GNG like Business Toady, Gadgets360, Live Hindustan, Amar Ujala, The Economic Times, Business Insider, The Indian Express and other you can find in google search. (Note - All sources are reliable, independent and not press released) 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the sources which you shared are announcements and launch news based on PR Material. The majority of your links have the same content with the same date (14th, 15th Aug) and The Economic Times is again not independent, as no independent comment by any journalist. Nothing other than PR, so fails notability. Lordofhunter (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the links shared are not RS, and I don't see GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would not agree with the fact the sources are not reliable, indeed it is not passing notability. Indian news sources' notability is not much defined in Wikipedia, and it doesn't mean it is not reliable. Lordofhunter (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are in fact, please see here: [18]. None of what you've shared seems to be on this list. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:RSP: A source's absence from the list does not imply that it is any more or less reliable than the sources that are present. Absence just means its reliability hasn't been the subject of serious questioning yet. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... For a source to be added to this list, editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past, or an uninterrupted request for comment on the source's reliability that took place on the reliable sources noticeboard. So sources not being on RSP could be top-notch, generally reliable, marginally reliable, generally unreliable, or blatantly non-RS sites. But in this case they're obviously non-WP:SIGCOV IMO, so the reliability question is secondary IMHO, even if the sources are all reliable SIGCOV still is failed. VickKiang (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the references in the article does not contribute to WP:NPRODUCT or WP:GNG, being a collection of standard notices, routine announcements mainly on new platforms, hosts, and launches, or interviews. The references my WP:BEFORE found, unfortunately, appear to fail SIGCOV, e.g., 1, 2, 3. None of the references LordVoldemort728 linked contribute to notability. Those are: a minor announcement on platform launch that is promotional (Zee5 aims to empower India by giving the audiences a platform where their talent...), launch of a new platform mainly being quoted, press release/routine announcement on new launch with a promotional list of app highlights, routine announcement on new launch and Tiktok ban with speculations, i.e., The company hasn't given details about the app, but little direct in-depth commentary, another announcement on 43 million users being upgraded, short announcement on beta rollout of HiPi, a minor video platform, and another reference that is longer but primarily quotes or covering routine product details. None of those references meet WP:SIGCOV, and this topic IMO fails WP:NPRODUCT or WP:GNG. VickKiang (talk) 06:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Janaki Ramudu (2016 film)[edit]

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

The article was created by a user named Gifton Elias, who composed the music for this film.
The article has one reliable review and nothing else. This source mentions the film once in a passing mention.
There are no other reliable sources or reviews. There are a bunch of other sources in the article but they are all unreliable. This does not add anything. DareshMohan (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Telangana. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Waggers TALK 12:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One review is insufficient to pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, all other refs are non-SIGCOV (e.g., one trivial mention from The Hindu, database from The Times of India without any critic reviews) or non-RS, e.g., this site which lacks editorial policies. My WP:BEFORE mainly found articles on Janaki Ramudu (1988 film of the same name), but I couldn't find more references counting towards GNG/NFILM. VickKiang (talk) 22:28, 21 December 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. It comes down to a subjective difference of opinion on whether the sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG, and with the !votes fairly evenly split, neither side holds a clear advantage over the other. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Sancinito[edit]

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

Amateur footballer who played only one season professionally in a minor league team. Nothing really notable about him, no valuable WP:RS can be found, apart from the usual transfer reports, occasional stats and interviews, fails WP:GNG. Angelo (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Angelo (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], and [38], among many many more Italian sources from ivg.it, svsport.it, imperiasport.net, riviera24.it, calcioflashponente.it, sanremonews.it, primalariviera.it, cittadellaspezia.com, imperianews.it, YouTube.com, imperiapost.it, genova24.it, and settimanasport.com etc. Clearly significant figure in Italian lower league football. He has an ongoing career with experience in the fully pro Italian Serie C. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources above are not sufficient for GNG. Q&A interview on local sports news site, 4-ish sentences at best on a local fanpage.it domain mentioning a match where he subbed out due to colorblindness, standard transfer news, routine match coverage, transfer news, transfer news, Q&A interview (video), Q&A interview, Q&A interview, Q&A interview, <50-word PR announcement of an award, Q&A interview, Q&A interview, Q&A interview, Q&A interview (video), Q&A interview (video), press conference quotes, Q&A interview, and two links to the same Q&A interview. Garbage, nowhere close to SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind there are many many more Italian sources not listed here from ivg.it, svsport.it, imperiasport.net, riviera24.it, calcioflashponente.it, sanremonews.it, primalariviera.it, cittadellaspezia.com, imperianews.it, YouTube.com, imperiapost.it, genova24.it, and settimanasport.com etc. Clearly significant figure in Italian lower league football. He has an ongoing career with experience in the fully pro Italian Serie C. Also those two links were not to the same article. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except these websites might very well not be reliable sources (YouTube videos are not considered valid sources): they are all minor local/regional websites with no real authority, whose subjects are basically just game reports, stats, transfer reports and "interviews". One season at Serie C level for a player who otherwise played amateur football all his life and is now well into regional leagues does not guarantee notability. Having your name mentioned in the Web at some pages does not inherently qualify you for notability. So, sorry, but it clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. --Angelo (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you link the sources that do count towards GNG instead of all those useless routine and non-independent articles? JoelleJay (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 20:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bombardment of non GNG sources does not mean the article is notable. I agree with Joelle's analysis above, this article fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about non-notable footballer which clearly fails WP:GNG - sources provided so far fall short of WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes GNG, article can be reasonably expanded.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:36, 23 December 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. Sandstein 12:20, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinik[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2010. Google does not give obvious answer. Korduq province is a redirect to a list. Xx236 (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Xx236 (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and the article for Greater Armenia does not include Korduq on its list of provinces Elinruby (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find nothing using this term for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Geography. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Korduq/Korduk appears to be a lost-in-translation of Corduene. I've been unable to locate literally any information in both Armenian and English (searching as both Pinik/Piniq) on this city. As there is no sourcing that ties this city to the region of Corduene, a redirect it would be inappropriate. Curbon7 (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Make of this what you will. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment I had to download the image and zoom in to read that. But, searching on "P'inakaka", which is according to the above snippet an older name for the place, led me to this: [39] which might shed some light for somebody -- not me, alas; I know very little about Armenia. But maybe possibly this, plus and Phil's link, indicate that maybe this is a thing (?) No opinion on whether it can be further sourced. Elinruby (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ridho Syuhada[edit]

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

Ridho Syuhada

Association football player who does not satisfy sports notability or general notability. Article was created in article space, moved to draft space by User:Onel5969, but created again in article space by originator. Checking references shows that they are database entries or accounts of matches with passing mention that he played.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	worldfootball.net	A database entry	Yes	No	Yes	No
2	suaramerdeka.com	Description of game	Yes	No, passing mention	Yes	No
3	soccerway.com	Match results	Yes	No	Yes	No
4	https://suarabaru.id/	Description of game	Yes	No, passing mention	Yes	No
5	soccerway.com	Match results	Yes	No	Yes	No

The article should be deleted, and the draft allowed to stand. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per rationale by Robert McClenon. Fails GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @Onel5969:, I found 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 among many many more Indonesian sources. He is a young player with an ongoing career in the fully pro Indonesian top flight, which receives a lot of media coverage. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 20:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG. Proper BEFORE not completed.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:36, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - having checked the sources provided above, most of them are reliable and the coverage is certainly enough to build an article from Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:04, 26 December 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 TSA (band). Sandstein 12:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Machel[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. All the sources I'm finding are either unreliable sources or name drops (note that I don't speak Polish and don't understand it so there may be reliable polish sources to be found). Only source on the article currently seems to be a store page. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Poland. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Pl wiki has an interview in a source that's probably reliable (but WP:INTERVIEW...): [40]. Mention in the encyclopedia of Polish rock (a book) cited on pl wiki seems to be passing, he is mentioned as a member of a band, which has an entry there, but I don't think he has one. That said, I only have snippet view so I cannot be sure; index does suggest he may be covered on pages 414-418, but it's just an index. I'll ping a Polish Wikipedian who often know more than me about Polish music topics: User:Yurek88. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Co-founder and long time member of legendary Polish rock band TSA, also described as first Polish heavy metal band (e.g. P. Zieliński, Scena rockowa w PRL, 2005). His connections with TSA are mentioned in detail in Polish rock encyclopedia. And this is very reliable source, believe me. Yurek88 (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1 reliable source is typically not enough for an article on a BLP here on enWiki. We usually look for at least 3. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TSA (band). He is better known in Poland than implied in the nomination, but there is still not enough for a stand-alone article. It appears to me that, except for occasional film work, he is usually described as a member of the band and has done little outside of their albums. The discography in his article is all TSA albums. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:04, 26 December 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 Lists of books based on Doctor Who. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis in Space[edit]

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

Article seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. My WP:BEFORE search didn't turn anything up. OliveYouBean (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it's another book in the same series and also seems to be non-notable:

OliveYouBean (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, Television, and United Kingdom. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Doctor Who books. I don't think that this in itself is notable, though Crisis in Space does appear in Reading Interests of Native Indian College Students: Implications for the Library, (but I can't see the extent). But as individual sections of articles don't need to adhere to notability standards, I think including the whole Make Your Own Adventure with Doctor Who should be mentioned at the target for completeness as an alternative to deletion. Daranios (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That mention is not actually within the paper itself. There is an advertisement for the book at the bottom of the last page. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lists of books based on Doctor Who: I could not find any reliable sources that discuss this topic in detail. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lists of books based on Doctor Who as a WP:ATD. Fails WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, single review cited is insufficient. The ref Daranios found is a trivial mention and I couldn't find more per my WP:BEFORE (though do ping me otherwise). VickKiang (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As suggested above. Crisis in Space is not a particularly notable Doctor Who book and has not received significant coverage since its publication so I do not think it merits its own article. However the "Make Your Own Adventure" series should probably be added as a section of Lists of books based on Doctor Who for the redirect to make sense. Dunarc (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Comment - I should add that I would also say the same about Search for the Doctor though there might be an argument that it is more significant as it was arguably the first Doctor Who novel not to be an adaptation of a television story. That said, that is a debatable point, and I think the extremely limited amount of coverage it has received renders its notability insufficient to justify an independent article on it. Dunarc (talk) 21:35, 27 December 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 Doha Debates. I see a consensus to Redirect. But all of the content remains in the page history should the notability of his circumstances change. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amjad Atallah[edit]

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

The article is essentially a short resume and the more "notable" items about him, such as Women for Women and his position with Doha Debates, already have their own articles and mention him. The existing sourcing includes a dead link, a one-sentence source, a single quote from him in an article, an article by him about Doha Debates, and two mini-bios on organization pages. Other sourcing I can find is along the same lines of mini-bios on websites of organizations he's worked for or did a talk with or involve him in some way and briefly mention him. Overall, there doesn't appear to be deep or very comprehensive sourcing about him in any quantity. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Indiana. AllyD (talk) 07:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: The article text summarises the subject's past and current jobs, but without indicating grounds for individual biographical notability (e.g. by the WP:JOURNALIST criteria). A redirect to Doha Debates may be a reasonable WP:ATD. AllyD (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Atallah is the editor-in-chief at Al Jazeera America since 2015 (USA Today), previously was the regional director for the Americas (Business Insider, 2014), and started as the bureau chief for the Americas in 2011 (Politico). Beccaynr (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for these sources but one clarification, he isn't with Al Jazeera anymore according to a source on the article[41] and according to his LinkedIn for what it's worth he left in August 2017. A couple of those sources aren't what we want to use to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG/WP:NBIO (2 barely name drop him), but I don't think it is in contention he worked for Al Jazeera as of 2015. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 03:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first source I linked to in my comment is the Al Jazeera America website and it says, "Amjad Atallah is the executive vice president for content (editor-in-chief) for Al Jazeera America." But his profile at the Women for Women International organization he co-founded refers to him as the "managing director of Doha Debates" and says he previously worked at Al Jazeera. Beccaynr (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect in the present state. I also searched a bit for interesting sources, but wasn't successful.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:23, 27 December 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. Daniel (talk) 11:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Myanmar–Venezuela relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lacking coverage and lacking things that usually make a bilateral relationship notable like resident ambassadors, significant trade/migration or state visits. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Myanmar, and Venezuela. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added additional information to the article, mostly from Spanish versions. I will try to include further content in the future, but Myanmar has supported Maduro's government during the Venezuelan presidential crisis, and the topic has enough coverage to warrant inclusion and has a concurrent embassy in Vietnam. I invite to look for other sources, per WP:BEFORE. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is no point for this article, these 2 countries have barely ever had a relation. But the recent info provided by NoonIcarus I think keeping it is agreeable.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 23:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:28, 21 December 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, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Karika[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient coverage from reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of anime conventions. While there were questions about creating a redirect, I noticed that most of the conventions listed in this article are also defunct. If Anime Vegas is removed from this list, the redirect can be reconsidered at RFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Vegas[edit]

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

A three day conference which was last held in 2013. It in no way asserts significance, but bringing it here since @Cyrius: contested the ((db-event)) speedy, and so I assume it wouldn't be appropriate to PROD. The convention existed, but I cannot find anything other than event listings. No in depth coverage or viable AtD as there are many anime conventions. Star Mississippi 03:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Nevada. Star Mississippi 03:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. This doesn't appear notable per Wikipedia's policy nor in the general sense. Every source is the AnimeCons website's annual listing for this convention and a pair of short Las Vegas Sun news articles, and I can't find anything else that would demonstrate its encyclopedic notability and importance. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Delete/Redirect with the knowledge that a List of anime conventions article exists. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find notices saying it was a thing, but it's been dead for almost a decade, we likely won't find further sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Link20XX (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the convention defunct so long, along with it not being well know, there's not really anyway to improve the article. I could only find unusable press releases on ANN. Esw01407 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Not seeing how WP:NEVENT/WP:GNG would be met. Ideally this should be redirected somewhere, and List of anime conventions which mentions it seems like a reasonable target. Pinging prior voters so they can consider changing delete votes to redirect ones or rebuke me for the proposal :) @User:Saucysalsa30, User:Oaktree b, User:Esw01407. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. It may as well be a redirect considering that list exists. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either option is fine, I'm not too fussed about the redirect. Oaktree b (talk) 12:58, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete would still be correct in my opinion, because we'd also be deleting Anime Vegas from that list. Only conventions with Wiki articles are placed on List of anime conventions. Esw01407 (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No big objection to a redirect as nom, but that list says These are notable conventions that have at one time existed and it does not appear this convention was notable, so it might not make sense to include there, rendering a redirect unhelpful to the reader. Star Mississippi 01:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Louima[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An internet search reveals nothing noteworthy. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 07:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Price, Arizona[edit]

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

Here we reach something of a nadir in searching, but both the topos and the GNIS entry itself lean heavily towards this as a rail location and nothing more. Mangoe (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding evidence that it currently exists, even as a ghost town Elinruby (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Louisy[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Software Dynamics[edit]

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

Advertorialized article about a software company, not properly referenced as passing WP:CORP criteria. Once the advertorialized claims are discounted, the only thing left here is that the company and its products exist, which isn't an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of proper sourcing -- but the article is completely unsourced, and has been flagged as such since 2015 without ever seeing any new references added. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete I get nothing, and their claim to have created After Dark is demonstrably false. Mangoe (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As a point of order, they're claiming they ported After Dark, not created it (and I believe that's accurate based on some other sourcing.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found for this company. Article has been tagged since 2015 with no improvements made, suggesting there are no further sources to be found either. Oaktree b (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found some possible sources, but they're basically all just "this software exists" rather than any focus on the company (and the individual applications don't seem to have substantiative coverage, either, except for perhaps the Inner Space game.) Some of the results are most likely false positives (e.g. a mention in the WSJ is for a California-based Software Dynamics, not one from Canada.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Herby Magny[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:55, 21 December 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. The consensus is clear to Delete this article. Because an editor challenged my closure of another football-related AFD discussion I'll just say that personally, I find these kinds of articles interesting. But AFD is not about one person's opinion, even the closer. It's about what the community wants which, as a closer, I try to carry out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of undefeated national association football teams[edit]

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

Topic of unclear notability. This article is further confusing because it mixes teams that were undefeated in WC qualifying with teams that were undefeated in main WC play in the same table (for each WC year).

Article is unsourced and so may be WP:OR. Natg 19 (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Lists. Natg 19 (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Natg 19 (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if nothing else, the title of the article is completely wrong, because "List of undefeated national association football teams" would cover teams which have never lost a match, as in ever, of which I'm pretty sure there aren't any...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree with this as well. If kept, this article and the title needs a drastic overhaul. Natg 19 (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To me it's unclear what the article is trying to do. I get part of the gist of it, however in my view put some WP:TNT under it! :/ Govvy (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate, random list. Giant Snowman 19:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The undefeated teams are not statistics. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see any evidence that this meets WP:GNG as it doesn't appear to be something that is discussed at length in WP:RS. Also think it might violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which is a Wikipedia policy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The title bugs me. Is it undefeated for an entire season, or just undefeated this season, or, as the nom suggests, undefeated forever? Would it require maintenance after the first game of the season, to list every 1-0 team? It's a guaranteed mess to maintain, it invites vandalism, it's WP:INDISCRIMINATE, fails WP:NLIST... Let's get rid of it now. Jacona (talk) 11:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are you people mad? You don't understand football, fine. You don't have to ruin everything football related. Not all of Wikipedia is about academia people enjoy knowing about sports, too. Mohenhance (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has a predecessor which was discussed in this AfD. It was originally created in something like 2010 by User:Jnestorius and had a narrower scope, listing only teams that either (a) won undefeated, (b) were eliminated without losing, or (c) did not qualify despite never losing in qualification. I then expanded it to include all teams undefeated in qualification, and eventually it was deleted. Apparently the creator of the current page had stored the code of the previous one and has recreated it (it looks pretty much exactly like the previous one prior to deletion). --Theurgist (talk) 22:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While I understand the rationale behind the imminent deletion, I have edited the tables to make them simpler and more to-the-point, in case yet someone else would like to store the code. --Theurgist (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Wells, Arizona[edit]

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

Once you eliminate the wind farm project announced last spring, there's essentially nothing to find out about this place except what the aerials show: a house, a barn, and a bunch of corrals. Pretty clearly not a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Elinruby (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:57, 21 December 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) Garuda3 (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barefoot Empress[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found and all minor awards DonaldD23 talk to me 01:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 1 Review Film Threat Magzine [42]
AShiv1212 (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Discussed in Variety [43] and about a dozen Indian news media outlets. Oaktree b (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This movie has been discussed in many news sources. Film Threat, Firstpost, WION News, SheThePeople, Mid-Day, The Tribune India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 09:17, 21 December 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 Hawaiian Airlines#Accidents and incidents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian Airlines Flight 35[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, this aviation incident fails WP:GNG and WP:AIRCRASH. There were no fatalities, no reported serious damage to the aircraft, and likely will not result in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry. ZLEA _T\^C 00:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ZLEA _T\^C 00:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article does not meet the criteria of WP:AIRCRASH but I would argue it has received wide coverage across multiple media outlets so may satisfy WP:GNG. I would note this is a very recent incident and I don't know enough to comment on whether or not any procedures will change as a consequence of it in the future. EvilxFish (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete at least for now per WP:NOTNEWS and the relevant air accident guidelines. It is far too soon to assess the coverage of this, as all air incidents on scheduled US flights are heavily reported at first, no matter how minor. Mangoe (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it wasn't a holiday week and this was a generic continental route it would be mentioned in brief; the only reason it's here is that it's a longer route and morning shows get more excited about Hawaii-bound people going through this and strip-mining their socials than someone from Indianapolis to Vegas. Nobody was critically injured and there's nothing more here. Nate • (chatter) 03:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Hawaiian Airlines#Accidents and incidents. This entire incident can be summarized in that section. Vida0007 (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I SAY DELETE— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.169.114 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 December 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!} 00:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fardeen Kohistani[edit]

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

Article about former footballer that fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. There is no online coverage outside of statistics databases. PROD was removed without any indication that WP:SIGCOV exists. Jogurney (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Afghanistan. Shellwood (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a clear failure of GNG unless anyone is able to provide detailed coverage from a reliable source in any language. If so, please let me know Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An internet search reveals nothing noteworthy. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 07:17, 22 December 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!} 00:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Handball at the 2015 African Games – Women's tournament squads[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Squads not covered in third party sources. Similar AfD to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handball at the 2015 African Games – Men's tournament squads. LibStar (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Handball, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of coverage from sources independent of the tournament itself. brazzaville2015.com and the organisations for each individual nation do not count as independent, reliable sources in this instance. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:59, 21 December 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.