< December 08	December 10 >

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Congress of Essential Workers[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG: the only source that mentions CoEW more than once is the In These Times source, which does NOT cover CoEW, but merely mentions it as a predecessor to Amazon Labor Union, which is what the article is about. Women's Wear Daily is a source for news on FASHION, NOT politics, and the Los Angeles Times mentions it only once as the group protesting in front of Jeff Bezos' house. Searching the web, I did not find any other sources. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 00:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (As creator of article) Due to meeting WP:GNG based on the WP:SIGNIFICANT coverage in reliable sources, including:

https://inthesetimes.com/article/amazon-workers-band-together-to-form-labor-union-against-amazon-jeff-bezos-chris-smalls In These Times is a reliable source, the article says a lot about the organisation and it's set up, that's easy to see and so I think the nominator is mistaken.
https://wwd.com/business-news/business-features/amazon-chris-smalls-workers-group-1203631429/ Yes Women's Wear Daily is a notable fashion industry trade journal, and so it's logical to cover trade disputes and has a focus on retail (the org is about online retail workers). It's a trade journal established in 1910 (over 100 years of experience) with a full editorial department https://wwd.com/about-us/

And yes, the mention in the LA Times is brief, and so is the mention in New York Magazine, but the two pieces of significant coverage give us enough to make a start length article, so matches my expectations of something to keep. CT55555(talk) 01:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Amazon Labor Union - Just to clarify, I first thought of starting a Merge discussion, to merge the relevant parts of history into the Amazon Labor Union article, but I figured that the better way to start the discussion was here (since you created this as its own article rather than as history in ALU). My opinion is that the InTheseTimes article was written in May 2022, thereby only covering CoEW because it became ALU, rather than as its own organization, and that the Women's Wear Daily article only states: "...Smalls is starting The Congress of Essential Workers, or TCOEW, a rank-and-file committee that is going to be..." so it can't be said to be biographical of CoEW. Additionally, since this org no longer exists, it won't be getting more coverage in the future (other than coverage as a predessor to ALU). So I would really vote for "Merge".---Avatar317 ^(talk) 01:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)striking the ivote of the nominator. The nominator does not get to ivote in the AfD. Delete, keep, draft, redirect, merge are all outcomes to be decided by editors. The nominator has already ivoted by nominating. WP:DISCUSSAFD Lightburst (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Searching the web, I did not find any other sources" but I just did a full WP:BEFORE search and found three books with more information, which I added in. I mention in case that persuades you. CT55555(talk) 02:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I see no reason to assume no more coverage will be coming, unless you only consider news sources (which does seem to be what happened here) because I can see potential for academic writing and books to write more about the chain of events that lead to the first union of USA's 2nd biggest employer. I consider it most likely that more content will come. CT55555(talk) 02:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you have just added contain nothing more than small mentions of this organization as one of many pursing similar goals/agendas; meaning we still do not have a single source to establish notability of this organization *in its own right* (other than as a predecessor to ALU).

I agree with you that more academic coverage may be coming, but that is merely (again) because as you said CoEW is part of "the chain of events that lead to the first union of USA's 2nd biggest employer."

My main point here is that because there has not been any WP:GNG type news about this org, means that it never accomplished enough in its own right to generate enough news coverage to be notable, and therefore does not meet the qualifications for its own separate article.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 22:09, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree about the relevance of it only being notable because of something else. Things either pass the general notability guideline or they don't. We don't delete things just because they have a more notable relation or successor. For example:

Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company would probably not be notable if it wasn't for IBM, but it still is notable.
If Joe Biden didn't get so famous, would Neilia Hunter Biden even have been notable? Probably not, but he did and she passes GNG
Probably Kasper Rørsted wouldn't be notable if he didn't get he Adidas job, should we merge him into the Adidas article? No, he's notable in his own right.

Things can be notable, even if they are less notable than the thing they are closest to.

Let's get even more specifically similar:

Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers is the predecessor to United Steelworkers, both are notable
American Nurses Foundation is an arm of American Nurses Association. But because it passes WP:GNG it's OK for both to have articles.

Many things are mostly notable because of something else, but that's not important. What is important is if there is reliable sources with significant coverage. There is. CT55555(talk) 04:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So far, we have minor coverage in ONE source and single mentions in multiple sources; not enough for GNG, in my opinion. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 22:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that was correct, I might agree, but my first reply to you includes links to an In These Times article that talks about the org significantly and a trade magazine article that is specifically about the org. CT55555(talk) 03:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The InTheseTimes article gives minor coverage (not significant) and (as I already said above) the trade magazine (Women's Wear Daily) states: ...Smalls is starting The Congress of Essential Workers, or TCOEW, a rank-and-file committee that is going to be..., written 10 days after he started it, so it can't be said to be biographical of CoEW; an article describing the hopes and aspirations of a yet-to-be organization is only coverage of the starter's dreams/hopes, which may not turn out to be what the org actually does. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 01:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CT55555(talk) 16:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Amazon Labor Union. They seem to be the same organisation. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the same organization. I think the way to look at it is that Congress of Essential Workers created a new and different (but connected) organizationAmazon Labor Union. Even after the second organization was stared , the first one is still active, they were tweeting last month https://twitter.com/tcoew The same twitter bio mentioned that the former org is supporting the later org. CT55555(talk) 04:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello CT55555. Thank you for the explanation, I will amend my !vote. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the predecessor to the Amazon Labor Union is notable and is covered in reliable sources like the LA Times. We have enough for an encyclopedic article on the subject. Lightburst (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Lightburst. Didn't the Congress evolve into the ALU, instead of them being separate organisations? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:50, 9 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!} 01:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is notable. Follow the WP:RSs. Bruxton (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am leaning towards keep based on my initial research, which seems to indicate TCOEW is more than a predecessor because it has functioned as an umbrella organization that includes the ALU, e.g. Vice 2021, distinguishes TCOEW from other unions, including ALU, WaPo 2022, identifies Jordan Flowers as a current member of TCOEW and ALU. Perhaps a broader research focus on the past and current activities of this organization can help support its notability per the WP:NONPROFIT guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think I have mischaracterised/misunderstood the predecessor/successor dynamic when I created this one and in forming/verifying my reply above to MrsST, I understood it the way you have said it above. CT55555(talk) 17:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is some general context related to the background/formation of the organization in this 2020 NYT source, and: "Smalls is planning more labor actions and hoping to organize workers under a new banner — the Congress of Essential Workers. ‘‘We want to use a unionlike structure but not call it a union,’’ he said. ‘‘A lot of employees at Amazon are afraid of unions.’’" Beccaynr (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a separate organisation to the ALU. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:46, 13 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!} 23:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sidonie Rakotoarisoa[edit]

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

Can't find any evidence of notability for this individual; looks to fail WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The source Pundit Arena is just a squad list mention. The player has 4 hits in ProQuest but every single one is just a trivial mention in a match report or squad list. I can't find any example of actual detailed coverage. The French Wikipedia article also doesn't contain anything of use here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NRU and more importantly WP:GNG. Other than the sourcing nom has found, which isn't GNG qualifying I'm seeing very little, can't see a suitable WP:ATD either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found no evidence that the player meets WP:GNG. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:32, 16 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 2022 Gulf South Conference football season. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 North Greenville Crusaders football team[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This is a lower-level, Division II football team with a losing record, and lacking SIGCOV in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Of the three cited sources, two relate to an entirely different program (Furman) and the other is a non-independent source announcing the schedule and published by North Greenville itself. Cbl62 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and South Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree it does not meet notability requirements, being a specific season by a lower division team with a losing record and no other aspects being notable. KeepItGoingForward (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A small unnotable football team, I couldn't find anything on google.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 00:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~North Greenville Crusaders football~~ 2022 Gulf South Conference football season#North Greenville per nom. This season is not independently notable based on a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Frank Anchor 15:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Redirect target modified as a better option was presented by User:Cbl62 below. Frank Anchor 19:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Refactor as a section of 2022 Gulf South Conference football season. The nominator, Cbl62, has recently recreated the analogous 2022 Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference football season, 2022 Great Midwest Athletic Conference football season, 2022 Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference football season, and 2022 Great Lakes Valley Conference football season. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a conference/season article would be the best solution but User:Jpp858 has created stand-alone articles for every member school for each of the past several seasons. I proposed merging them into conference/season articles (see User talk:Jpp858#Gulf South Conference team season articles) but have not received any response. Cbl62 (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now created 2022 Gulf South Conference football season, and the correct redirect target would be 2022 Gulf South Conference football season#North Greenville. Cbl62 (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 Gulf South Conference football season#North_Greenville as an WP:ATD. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge/edit I think we might be having a merge discussion in a deletion discussion...--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:51, 16 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!} 23:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vlado Ursić[edit]

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

WP:NRU has been deprecated so this article needs to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC now. Best sources I can find are Sportnet, which is a bunch of passing match report mentions and Vecernji, which mentions him as the coach of an under-18 side. Doesn't seem to pass the tougher standards that apply now. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Croatia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that Ursic does not meet notability requirements. KeepItGoingForward (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NRU and more importantly WP:GNG. Other than the sourcing nom has found, which isn't GNG passing, I'm not really seeing anything else, and can't see a suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article does not show notability. Alex-h (talk) 17:15, 12 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 2022 Gulf South Conference football season. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Shorter Hawks football team[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This is lower-level, Division II football team with a losing record, finishing in last place in its conference, and lacking SIGCOV in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Georgia (U.S. state). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree it does not meet notability requirements, being a specific season by a lower division team with a losing record and no other aspects that would make it notable. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, fails WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Shorter Hawks#Football~~ 2022 Gulf South Conference football season#Shorter per nom. Not independently notable due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Frank Anchor 16:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Redirect target modified as a better option was presented by User:Cbl62 below. Frank Anchor 19:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Refactor as a section of 2022 Gulf South Conference football season. The nominator, Cbl62, has recently recreated the analogous 2022 Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference football season, 2022 Great Midwest Athletic Conference football season, 2022 Great Lakes Intercollegiate Athletic Conference football season, and 2022 Great Lakes Valley Conference football season. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now created 2022 Gulf South Conference football season, and the correct redirect target would be 2022 Gulf South Conference football season#Shorter. Cbl62 (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 Gulf South Conference football season#Shorter as an WP:ATD. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this solution seems best.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:45, 16 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!} 20:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amor Hamdi[edit]

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

Extremely overdue AfD for this badly sourced BLP that hasn't had a proper source since it was created in 2010. He exists because I can find a mention in World Rugby and Nation but we know nothing about this person other than the fact that he is a Tunisian person and that he plays/played rugby. I can't find any justification for a stand-alone article or a passing of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I'm not sure if he would have met WP:NRU but that guideline seems to have been deprecated. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Tunisia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially no reliable sources. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like he fails WP:NRU, but can't confirm, but not important anyway as he fails GNG. I can't find anything other than what the nom has found and similar, which all fail GNG. Can't see a suitable WP:ATD either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is not covered by reliable sources.Alex-h (talk) 17:25, 12 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!} 20:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Douglas Shawcross[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet either WP:GNG nor WP:Author. The sources cited are two paywalled local newspaper articles from a century ago and a citation to the single book that he wrote. A Google search of the author and of his book turns up only mirrors of this Wikipedia article; Google Books turns up only passing mention in lists and nothing to indicate any notability; Google Scholar turns up nothing whatsoever. Banks Irk (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the text and references added today: (1) myheritage com is not a reliable source - see numerous discussions of the comparable site, ancestry.com, at WP:RSN and (2) sources on his grandfather don't establish any notability for the subject of the article. Banks Irk (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOTNERITED. This stub seems to highlight his relatives rather than him. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG. The only match I found in the Wikipedia Library was for a one-paragraph review of Nature and the Idealist in The Expository Times. Regards BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:37, 16 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. Good luck on any future bagpipe articles that cover some of this same subject area. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of nontraditional bagpipe usage[edit]

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

Contested PROD without an explanation; an assorted list of WP:TRIVIA (the use of a relatively popular instrument in a rock song is not notable). Any actual notable use, such as by Rufus Harley or Sinfonia with Bagpipe and Hurdy-Gurdy by Mozart, can be incorporated into the bagpipe article. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Lists. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What? You mean I'm mistaken in having just a hundred performances of Scotland the Brave on my Spotify bagpipes playlist? At least this guy is on the list! Reywas92^Talk 21:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My favourite entry: Though not actual bagpipes, the Scottish band Big Country would often use guitars that, by the use of electronics, were very similar sounding to bagpipes. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only is the entire list just comprised of trivia, there are no reliable sources to indicate that the overall topic is notable to begin with. Rorshacma (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only sourceable items. Admittedly this list is over the top, but the topic does exist: The 10 best uses of bagpipes in rock, Rock songs featuring bagpipes, Bagpipes: A Rock-and-Roll History (Atlantic Monthly). This is covered briefly in the article on Bagpipes and I will add sources there. I see a list being useful, but only if sourced. I suspect that most of this is original research. Lamona (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then it would need to be Bagpipes in rock (or List of bagpipe use in rock) if that is the only thing able be sourced. That leads me to vote delete nonetheless since the page title is not a good redirect and there is no information on there worth saving. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial and poorly sourced. Not opposed Lamona's idea, but agree that that would be an entirely different article and the current article title shouldn't really redirect to whatever we'd name that hypothetical article. Sergecross73 msg me 00:29, 14 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Blue Sea[edit]

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

Non-notable. The sources provided are primarily niche databases or primary, or unreliable like Facebook. No coverage in mainstream sporting publications has been included apart from an obituary and I didn't find any myself. No mention of winning any notable races or competitions. The account that created the article originally appears to be an SPA with a COI, based on their account name. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact this horse lived for seven years when it was expected he'd only live for one or two is notable. The article simply needs better sources. TH1980 (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you "EnPassant" to pass judgment for all on what is worthy of inclusion?

Blue Blue Sea was a real off-track thoroughbred who raced and then was retired with me. I have documentation from vet records to testimony to a published book to back up everything that has been stated.

There are articles that have been published about Blue Blue Sea while he was alive.

Now you have started a storm because I am going to call on the Blue Blue Sea social media group to refute you.

I am sorry about your alleged brain injury. Perhaps we should delete you from your ability to pass judgment on Wiki articles because you have no proof of your alleged injury. Blueblueseaottb (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! WP:PA 100% applies here. Also, WP:Cooperation matters here as well! And on that, I can't get how this meets WP:N at all. So yes this is not cool! You even on your own talk page acknowledged your own Wikipedia:CONFLICT which also gets me here. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also are you canvansing here? Really? You have not read the rules here at all! WP:CAN is meant for this, please read it, thank you! Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Who are you "EnPassant" to pass judgment for all on what is worthy of inclusion?" – this looks like borderline WP:OWN.

BTW, for your information EnPassant has been blocked for sock puppetry. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! If they need someone to put up this AfD I will take it so it doesn't break the rule of AfDs by deleted people Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No news or any other sources that meet GNG are critical here. This is while interesting doesn't meet GNG.

Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to find those "better sources" with Newspapers.Com extended but nothing. Horses generally live >25 years, so having a diagnosis of something and living beyond that to 14 that doesn't make it notable. Possibly the book or its author might be, but this fails WP:GNG. BBQboffin (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are largely blog posts on horse-specific sites and don't read as independent journalism in reliable sources. Reywas92^Talk 14:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. So far it does look like that there aren't too many notable sources to be found, and most sources are more so for context rather than general notability. The horse is notable, but not notable enough. Would best belong in another thoroughbred-dedicated wiki. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:25, 13 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!} 20:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Victor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Football. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:45, 10 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 subject/creator's most recent edit was to complain about this article and say "I'd be happy if the page was removed completely", so I'm considering the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as well. RL0919 (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Foster (writer)[edit]

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

Admitted autobiography, with inadequate sourcing for a BLP and lots of unsourced claims Orange Mike | Talk 17:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wareon (talk) 06:20, 10 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 Love In Plane Sight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Jurinčič[edit]

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

The subject was the executive producer of the short film Love In Plane Sight. I think it's likely that the creator (who has an apparent conflict of interest) considers him notable under WP:CREATIVE #3 or WP:ANYBIO #1. I don't think that these criteria extend to every person involved in creating a creative work. In this case, it seems clear that notability is extended to Matej Rimanić and Nik Kranjec. Given that I have found no independent/significant coverage of this person, I think a redirect to the film might be the best option. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Slovenia. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, at the moment the movie is the only notable thing that merits an article. --Tone 20:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, also probable UPE editing.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Jurinčič is quite a successful director in Slovenia, but I guess he hasn't got the media coverage? Nik Kranjec (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage is kind of necessary to establish notability. Tone 17:34, 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!} 17:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Love In Plane Sight per nom, fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:ANYBIO. At best WP:CREATIVE is borderline met, but Luka, despite being an executive producer, is only very briefly and trivially mentioned in WP:RS, therefore it's iffy whether the WP:CREATIVE criteria extends to him. Hence, IMO this fails notability but redirect is a plausible WP:ATD. VickKiang (talk) 02:16, 11 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!} 04:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kwtham Kothoma[edit]

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

Was screened at a minor film festival. Zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Many of the current sources do not even mention the film. The only decent coverage is from the East Mojo, however, that site uses a "network of citizen-reporters", so probably doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The film is produced by Tribal Research and Cultural Institute and this qualify as a reliable source. Khorang 07:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is purely a video linking to the movie, not WP:SIGCOV at all. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 10:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are sources here and here (brief mention). Not sure about reliability. DareshMohan (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A routine announcement primarily quotes and a trivial mention are IMO insufficient to pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Similarly, the current references are non-RS or SIGCOV-failing announcements and minor news stories, on regarding the screening in the minor festival. The article has a reception section but given no verification I'm uncertain how long it is, my BEFORE only mentions e.g., this so am at delete but do ping me if you find more refs. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources above are about all there is, I find nothing in Gscholar or Jstor, or Gbooks. No coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 22:12, 9 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. ✗plicit 01:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Convergence Festival[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As per the previous PRODs and AfD, I still do not see how this conference event meets WP:SIGCOV or WP:NEVENT or WP:NORG. We barely have enough sources to support the text, not to mind supporting notability. While there were several recommendations for deletion in the previous AfD, the one contributor advocating a "keep" pointed to a single Irish Times article in which the subject is mentioned and a few (primary source) webpages where vague "claims to fame" were made (about being the "longest running sustainable living festival [in Ireland]" - when such a claim is unqualified, the source unknown and [for all we know] is/was the ONLY such event in Ireland). I can find no additional sources or coverage since my 2021 WP:BEFORE. Which is not surprising given that the event has been defunct since 2018 or 2019. That the article has subsequently been turned into some form of unsupported WP:NOTWEBHOST archive of the event's activities does little to justify retention.... Guliolopez (talk) 12:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a pity that a 19-year-old event (or 17 active years) has not achieved more coverage / recognition but it is what it is, and this clearly does not seem to reach the level we need - it fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG. SeoR (talk) 14:25, 6 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!} 17:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NEVENT. Spleodrach (talk) 18:47, 13 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 World of Sport Wrestling. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Cruz[edit]

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

No WP:SIGCOV. Working a week long house shows for WWE doesn't make this person notable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 2 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!} 17:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This hurt me a lot. As a fan, I know the importance of Cruz. But as wikipedian, I can't find many sources to support his notability. [1] [2] Looking for sources, I can't find anything focusing around him, most are routine results of events. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World of Sport Wrestling where subject is mentioned if SIGCOV cannot be found. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 23:19, 11 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanatan TV[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Kadı Message 16:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Asia, and India. Kadı Message 16:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable channel, Sources are not available even after searching, WP:TOOSOON Lordofhunter (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:08, 14 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. ✗plicit 14:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sander van Heeswijk[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Sarrail (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:57, 9 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. WP:BLPDELETE, WP:IAR. I think this has been a mid-air collision and discussion at cross purposes, and every admin involved in the debate does agree we shouldn't have an article on this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dan "Plank" Rogers[edit]

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

Non-notable sportsman. A WP:G10 has been declined several times, but this looks like a stereotypical autobiography or article about a friend, so without sources, I don't think we should have this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of you even read this? It is mocking him, a run-of-the-mill 30 year old 4th tier player, as "the best ever" who is said to be selected for the English national team soon. Since when it is acceptable to keep such abject BLP violating nonsense around? Fram (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deeply embarassed over the actions of admins Barkeep49, Ritchie333 and Bbb23 here, who usually know better (and know me better). A totally pointless AfD over an absolutel rubbish, vandalistic article, a mocking hoax, made in jest or to actually hurt, but not acceptable either way. Fram (talk) 15:09, 9 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 Apokolips. If editors prefer a different redirect target, please start a discussion on the redirect talk page or be BOLD! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parademon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This fails WP:GNG. The AfD two years ago had pretty weak participation, with one merge suggestion (with Darkseid) and one keep vote that referred to WP:NCOMIC, which is a user essay and as such hardly a strong argument, and one keep or merge, also citing NCOMIC. The article should've been relisted for more discussion, alas, it wasn't and since it hasn't improved, I think it's time to revisit this. Considering that it's a plot summary with no analysis/reception, and poorly referenced, I am unsure what would warrant a merged and hence I can suggest a redirect as the best WP:SOFTDELETE alternative. PS. If this is kept (sigh) the name should probably be changed to Parademons. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Gods#Known New Gods where the characters already have an entry. Rhino131 (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Apokolips or New Gods#Known New Gods (as suggested above), both of which describe them. While searches turn up plenty of hits for the name, as they are used very often, there really is not much on them that actually goes beyond plot summaries or things like product announcements. The reason why the article is nothing but in-universe plot descriptions and a list of "in other media" appearances is because that's really all that can be written about them based on sources. That said, they would be able to be properly covered in a broader topic, such as the suggested articles. Rorshacma (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the coverage does not rise to WP:SIGCOV. Most of it is plot summary or brief mentions. Jontesta (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the Apokolips part of the New Gods' Known New Gods section. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Apokolips#Inhabitants, which describes them in more detail and is generally a more relevant target than the New Gods article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's a consensus to redirect, but we're divided between two targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 14:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Mainly a plot summary with no analysis/reception. Nominator identified a redirect as an alternative to full deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shooterwalker, as the relist states, there is a consensus to redirect, now it's a discussion about the appropriate redirect target. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's a tossup between Apokolips which mentions them in pasing and the New Gods which lists them in a big and terribly bad list there. I would prefer to former, as I have serious doubts whether Parademons are correctly listed as "New Gods of Apokolips"; they are more grunts then gods. If anyone knows more of the lore here they can correct me. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: "New Gods" refers collectively to all of the characters existing in Kirby's fourth world, so Parademons are just as much New Gods and anyone else. That said, I don't really have an objection to redirecting to Apokolips either, so the closer can take that into account when deciding a redirect target. Rhino131 (talk) 17:01, 12 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. ✗plicit 14:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Bengolea[edit]

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

Article about footballer who made some appearances in the Bolivian top division but is now playing amateur football. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources about this footballer (although there is significant coverage of his Argentine father who played football). The best sources about the subject are club press releases that were worked into articles (announcing he was training with a Brazilian club's youth side) such as this and this. PROD was removed with a note referencing this coverage - which of course falls far short of meeting WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bolivia. Skynxnex (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found no evidence that the individual meets WP:GNG. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:54, 16 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. ✗plicit 14:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Sheskey[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NBIO standards. Sarrail (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Of the working sources in the article, there's nothing more than a blog post and some routine coverage about Sheskey taking up a CIO position at Dell; nothing that would qualify as significant coverage. I've looked for additional sources and not come up with anything, so this fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. WJ94 (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Finance, and Computing. Skynxnex (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notihng found, no sources other than social media or brief PR mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 21:18, 9 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. ✗plicit 14:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stavros Christoudias[edit]

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

Repeatedly recreated badly sourced BLP and a likely autobiography. The coverage clearly falls short of WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG and a WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing better. Google News had zero hits. Sigma Live 1 is a trivial mention (and is also a copy-paste of a press release from the club website) as is Sigma Live 2. Trifylli seems promising as it actually contains a paragraph about him but it is a fan site for AC Omonia and not true independent WP:RS. Even if this source were acceptable, SPORTBASIC explicitly calls for multiple non-trivial secondary sources which we do not appear to have for this WP:AUTOBIO. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 06:13, 11 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. There is consensus against keeping the material, and divided content about whether a redirect makes sense, which hampers its status as a viable ATD. Someone is welcome to create one editorially, however, should they wish. Star Mississippi 03:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warren and Brown[edit]

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

No sources available, no news mention (wiped out by everyone else also called warren/brown) Fermiboson (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in addition to the above, large parts of this article are copyvios from this page on the company website. It would need a fundamental rewrite to clear out the copyright material and reduce the promotional tone, but the effort is not worth it for a company that broadly fails WP:GNG. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - removal of copyvio items, and usage of material on talk page. Australian companies of the sort fail GNG et al, specially if it is based on google searches - I dont know if part of Trove is interrogated by google or not, but there were four easy refs to find in trove - one small problem is that Warren & Brown is a 100 year old estabishment in Toorak - and is notable for its transition in products over time - but somehow the trove is not used by fellow editors very much... JarrahTree 12:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A highly respected brand in auto workshops so check trade papers if you can find one. Their torque wrenches (best known for tightening head bolts) were legendary and went world-wide. The "dual signal" was a trigger release that was both felt and heard when the torque set-point had been reached, so could be used in circumstances where a dial could not be seen, in the dark, or by at least one blind mechanic — vale Ted G. Doug butler (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see mentions of GNG in the !votes above but this is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. We therefore require references that discuss the *company* in detail - not their products. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - we require at least two of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and "Independent Content". I've seen some sources mention products but I haven't seen anything that meets ORGIND and provides in-depth information on the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:33, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It should not be difficult to find sources for a notable company in the Anglosphere. This is promotional, and not particularly useful; a company could be five hundred years old, have invented the screw, and have ten billion dollars in assets, but if it's not got substantial independent third party coverage it doesn't meet WP:NCORP. FalconK (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY for the reasons given above by JarrahTree. A discussion on the products can make the company notable and there's ample coverage of that. And even if there's not consensus to keep there's ample valid reason as an alternative to deletion to Redirect to Repco which is the company that ultimately bought it, where there can be some valid discussion if necessary. Deus et lex (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's absolutely nothing in WP:NCORP that says a "discussion on the products can make the company notable" that I can see. Can you point to somewhere I might have missed? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - go and read it again. A reliable source on a company's products is a valid part of satisfying that criteria. Deus et lex (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. Significant, independent reviews of a company's products can render the products notable, but the company doesn't inherit that and the guideline does not say otherwise. This is intentional, since such an article could never be much more than a list of products. FalconK (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not mistaken. The policy doesn't say what you think it does, so you need to stop trying to read things into them to back up your point - the amount of silly arguments like this on AfD are tiring. In any case, this page is not a "list of products" - it is sourced and talks more about the history of them. Deus et lex (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such a redirect would be misleading, as W & B was the subject of a management buyout after Repco lost interest in that end of the market. Doug butler (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the reason given above by Doug Butler is not a valid one against including a redirect - Repco still owns the company. My preference is keep but it is a valid redirect. Deus et lex (talk) 21:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was hoping to find something on Google books as the company should have quite a rich history. Considering its more than 100 years old, its bound to have some kind established notabilty. It really needs a book search. scope_creep^Talk 10:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a company just ticks along, doing good business for decades and decades, probably very well respected - but never seems to have been written about. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Gough has a "family historian for hire" business "Stories to Keep". She was commissioned by the current owners of W & B, Neil Domelow and Steve Normoyle, to write a history of the company. It came out September 2022 as Warren and Brown - The First 100 Years. The price, $130 or so, is probably OK for such a tome, but outside my budget and almost certainly our local library's. Could easily be dismissed as an independent source too, despite Ms Gough's undoubted integrity as, inter alia, journalist and obituary writer for The Age. Doug butler (talk) 06:32, 14 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. I'm deciding to come down on Keep not only because more editors are advocating this position but those editors preferring Delete didn't offer a persuasive rationale for why this article should be deleted other than their own opinions that it was "not important" or "insignificant". And hearing that there are 39 players pages which redirect to this one article was the final element that clinched this for me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No secondary sources provided proving this is a notable topic in the annals of baseball. Dronebogus (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Completely insignificant and trivial list. Frank Anchor 02:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good idea, but we really only need a list of the players, not this long-winded article. Oaktree b (talk) 03:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This sounds like a rationale to edit the article down rather than delete. Rlendog (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Baseball. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is sourced and fits in with the other lists of baseball players. This article was created when all the individual articles for these players were deleted. This was the compromise. It is not "indiscriminate" cause there is a very clear criteria for this list. Spanneraol (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep or move to project space. There is an increasing propensity for old sources to be digitized and made accessible, which suggests that in time it may become possible to fully identify some of those listed here. However, without the list to work from, those connections will not be made. BD2412 T 16:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spanneraol. This is an unusual situation and as Spanneraol says, was based on a consensus compromise when addressing articles on certain of these players. It is perhaps IAR, but certainly not LISTCRUFT or INDISCRIMINATE. Rlendog (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This topic is not important. If the players are important, we would know their names. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and maintain status quo. There used to be separate articles on each of these players. Indeed, the article on Lewis was a Featured Article. See here. As Spanneraol notes, some objected to these being stand-alone articles, and the compromise was to combine them in this list article. The compromise was reasonable then, and if it is revoked, then I would fully expect this to go full circle with some arguing that the prior stand-alone articles should be restored. Cbl62 (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being featured is not a reason unto itself. Dronebogus (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
unto itself Sweet use of an archaic phrase. I'll give you that ... except nobody said it was a reason "unto itself". Cbl62 (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t know “unto itself” was an archaic phrase. Dronebogus (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral to be honest with you I see both parties' points. I see that the list clearly needs more indicators of notability (ie more references which specifically list notability or say why ball players without a given name should be notable) but I also see that this list came from a bunch of non-notable ball players that would probably never get notability. I believe this list was a compromise between keeping every player but moving them to a list. If more refs could be provided which list why it's notable consider me a keep, but for now I'm neutral. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn’t have to be a list of non notable people in a non-notable category that has no obvious inherent notability (these people obviously weren’t the best or most at anything if they’re nearly forgotten). Dronebogus (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is absolutely nothing indiscriminate about this list. There are clear criteria for inclusion and the list is well-sourced. This community is far too tolerant of misleading AFD nom rationales. At any rate, there is no good reason to delete this list. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s indiscriminate because it’s Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY of no clear importance, not because it’s unspecific. The fact that you’re accusing nobody in particular of being “too tolerant” of good faith arguments seems like you’re trying to disqualify it on Wikipedia:LAWYER grounds Dronebogus (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NOTDIRECTORY is a completely different argument from INDISCRIMINATE. Seems kind of ironic for you to move the goalposts like that and then accuse me of wikilawyering. Also, misleading AFD nom rationales and good faith arguments are not the same thing. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“Misleading” is not inherently malicious; a mistake can be good faith. You seem to be suggesting a misleading rationale should be considered an actionable offense. Dronebogus (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a mistake can be good faith. But if you recheck my initial comment, you'll see that I never opined on whether or not you were acting in good faith. You put those words in my mouth. I also never said anything about it being actionable. You also put those words in my mouth. Whether or not you were acting in good faith, I am tired of seeing articles brought to AfD on the basis of policies that do not apply. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s reasonable then, I suppose I misinterpreted you, but your point about the community’s “tolerance” of AFDs you object to also wasn’t very clear to begin with. Dronebogus (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, I certainly could have been clearer. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to project space. A list should have a clear criteria, but the criteria should be something that people might actually want to see collected in one place. A mention of them on their team's page, plus a brief aside about their given name not being identified, seems like it collects the information in a much more useful place for readers. Rusalkii (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's really viable. The last player on this list (Leonard) played for the St Louis Cardinals, a club for which (as far as I can see) more than 2000 players have played down the years. To single Leonard out for mention in the team article solely because his forename is not known would seem to be a massive UNDUE violation..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  There shouldn’t be a mention at all. This list is all about digging up meaningless trivia and putting it in a wildly WP:UNDUE framework even though, as mentioned, nobody cared enough about these players to even keep track of their first names. Dronebogus (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator's rationale is severely flawed. The second footnote, a SABR report from 2007, does contain discussion about several of the players listed (although I couldn't blame anyone for missing that because it was unreasonably hard to access). Additionally, the effort SABR members and other baseball historians have put in to finding first names and biographical information about these players, which has paid off in some cases (such as that of Patrick Larkins, a former member of the list in question), should put to rest the idea that this information is too trivial to appear on Wikipedia. Ideally the sourcing would be better than it is now, but WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Hatman31 (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just in case anyone objects that SABR is just one source, I should probably note that official MLB historian John Thorn has devoted two posts on his blog to a player formerly known only as Stine/Stein: here and here. I guess the case to keep isn't as airtight as it would be if someone found writing that covers all or most of the players without first names, but I still firmly believe that deleting this list would not make the encyclopedia better. Hatman31 (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The use of an actual academic source is good. Dronebogus (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This would seem better suited to the SABR crowd, it's likely too niche at this point for wikipedia. Ideally, they would do the research and publish it, then we can synthesize the results here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are comments to this discussion as recently as today. As you all know, a closer can close this discussion if they perceive a rought consensus to exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources in the article seem to fail to meet WP:LISTN. One of the sources in the lead doesn't even seem to mention Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names within its text. Otherwise, it's just an indiscriminate list that, if reduced to blue links, really doesn't even need to exist. CPORfan (talk) 14:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of BFDIFan707, see investigation)[reply]
Keep There are clear criteria for inclusion and the list is well-sourced. Meets WP:NLIST Lightburst (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I understand it, every Major League Baseball player whose given name is known is currently considered notable enough to have an article of his own. This list was created to compile the list of all the others for whom not even a given name is known; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith (baseball) where this issue was addressed not only for "_____ Smith" but many of his counterparts. See the guideline at WP:CSC which supports the use of lists where "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles ...." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--the book The Rank and File of 19th Century Major League Baseball discusses this issue (for example noting on page 60 that "McGuire" is the unprenomened player with that latest appearance), thus establishing that the phenomenon has been noted before and is not an original synthesis (and for this reason I think the "long-winded" part an editor above objects to is, in fact, useful--indeed, I think that section should be expanded and better sourced to demonstrate why this is an issue for researchers). blameless 01:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many good arguments for keeping the article have been made based purely on the notability of the page's content and the appropriateness of the topic for a list; I think it bears mentioning that there is also a good deal of historical precedent militating towards the utility of this article. Two deletion discussions have reached consensus to merge articles into this list: Jones (third baseman) (2021) and Smith (baseball) (2014). Additionally, a very large number of articles were turned into redirects without an AfD being run. Currently, there are a whopping 39 baseball players whose pages redirect here (including Jones and Smith): Maury Pierce, Shaffer (baseball), Edwards (baseball), Boland (baseball), Hellings (baseball), Quinn (baseball), Sheridan (baseball), Stoddard (baseball), Sweigert, Ham Sweigert, Hampton Sweigert, McCloskey (baseball), Spencer (baseball), O'Rourke (baseball), Higby (baseball), Gavern (baseball), Wood (baseball), Quinlan (baseball), Murphy (baseball), Scott (baseball), Wills (baseball), Jones (left fielder), Jones (outfielder), McRemer (baseball), Franklin (baseball), Sweigert (baseball), Macey (baseball), McBride (baseball), Stafford (baseball), Sterling (baseball), Sullivan (baseball), Booth (baseball), Evans (baseball), Leonard (baseball), McDoolan (baseball), and McGuire (baseball). The basis on which consensus exists for this gigantic undertaking is that the information has been moved to a list that includes all of the information from the respective articles; it does not exist to delete the information altogether. With this in mind, it is not clear what could possibly have changed in the months since the very well-attended Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones (third baseman) closed with everyone agreeing that the contents should exist on Wikipedia as part of this list. jp×g 09:12, 13 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. ✗plicit 14:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsch LA[edit]

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

References fail WP:ORGIND, WP:NCORP, and WP:CORPDEPTH. Refs moslty focuse on singers and other brands with no or brief mentioning of Deutsch LA. 多少战场龙 (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are generated from the company and constitute routine business news that fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Many of the references come from PR or are press-release driven. The Forbes is a contributor, The Adweek story taken from Twitter, the Wired story fails WP:ORGIND. There is several passing mentions. Fails WP:NCORP. Brochure advertising article from a blocked UPE. scope_creep^Talk 16:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
great detailed analysis of sources! 多少战场龙 (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@多少战场龙: If you need a per ref analysis, please ping me. scope_creep^Talk 15:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep thank you for your job. 多少战场龙 (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found no evidence that the company meets WP:GNG. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:41, 16 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!} 06:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Okoroafor[edit]

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

Can't find any decent coverage, even most database websites seem to omit him. There has been a lot of edit warring and heated debate about this article but, in my view, it fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC by a long way. Source analysis to follow. WP:BEFORE search yielded zilch. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source analysis - fails WP:GNG comprehensively Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.thetidenewsonline.com/2016/01/08/abia-warriors-start-pre-season-wins-first-match/		Mentioned once	✘ No
http://www.christianvoicenewsonline.com/2017/06/27/the-heartland-fc-story/		Mentioned once	✘ No
https://finixsports.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/abia-warrior-resume-training/	Wordpress blog	Mentioned once regarding a goal scored	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nom's thorough source analysis. I couldn't find anything better online. Jogurney (talk) 03:52, 16 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!} 06:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plataneros de Corozal squads[edit]

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

Not seeing enough to justify a stand-alone encyclopaedia article here. Primera Hora and fpvoleibol.com fail to discuss the subject in any great detail. Fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTN from what I can see. I would oppose a merge unless proper sourcing that verifies the article's content can be located. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Sports, and Puerto Rico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 15 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!} 06:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gavriel Constantinou[edit]

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

Stats stub for a footballer with no evidence of being able to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC, the latter guideline clearly states that the likes of Soccerway do not confer notability. All I can find in Greek language searches are basic press releases and no actual detailed coverage. Anorthosis 24 is an Anorthosis Famagusta F.C. fan site with low standards for inclusion and is only 3 sentences long (translated here). Kerkida is also painfully brief and the content is copied and pasted from a club press release per the translated version. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 06:12, 11 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!} 06:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olive Branch (1797 ship)[edit]

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

No evidence found, and article has no indication of, why this would be a notable ship. Fram (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear GNG fail, sourced solely to databases. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am not seeing anything that suggests that this ship was particularly notable and therefore do not think that there is any reason for it to have article. Dunarc (talk) 23:53, 11 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 DMK (band)#Permanent Hiatus and Compilation Album (2021-2022) as a reasonable ATD Star Mississippi 03:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Songs of Tiny Devotion: A Family Tribute to Depeche Mode 2010-2022[edit]

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

28 references, wow! Only one of them actually seems to be about this record though, the first one, which is their homepage. Not surprising, as this release has received no attention at all[3]. Fram (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Colombia. Fram (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is still work-in-progress. It will be finished next week with more references. The record has not received attention because it was just released two days ago and has not been released on Spotify, after which the band will officially release it to its fans on social media. 2600:4041:5B07:EE00:6DC6:E93B:1030:2AF0 (talk) 12:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being on Spotify and social media doesn't make the album notable if nobody outside of the band's social media is talking about it. At the moment it looks like both this and Dicken Schrader could be redirected to DMK (band) (which also suffers from massive citation overkill). Richard3120 (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the record still has not received any attention because it has not been officially released yet. When it does, we usually get a few interviews and articles outside of social media. I should have built this article as a draft until I get more relevant references.

As for "Dicken Schrader" the article has enough references to make it relevant. Dicken Schrader is notable in his own right for being one of the fans featured in the official Depeche Mode movie, outside his involvement with DMK which made him viral in 2012. 2600:4041:580E:7A00:4CD6:5BB3:B1F8:7DB2 (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have "enough" references - it has way too many references. And quantity does not equal quality... most of them are passing mentions, references to DMK, or interviews with him which fail WP:PRIMARY. But that's for another AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are mentions in The Guardian, The Huffington Post, CBS News, etc, there are also interviews in El Tiempo (Colombia's largest newspaper), which did a main article on Schrader and the band, plus other important publications around the world. 2600:4041:580E:7A00:4CD6:5BB3:B1F8:7DB2 (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you say "we get a few interviews". So are you in fact Dicken Schrader, and should you be declaring a conflict of interest? Richard3120 (talk) 14:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not, but I help him and the band with their releases and social media presence. 2600:4041:580E:7A00:4CD6:5BB3:B1F8:7DB2 (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article needs to cut back on the citation overkill. The last sentence of this article has 19 footnotes. That's unnecessary and unhelpful; one good citation per fact is enough (taking into account reliability of the source). As the nom indicates, many of the citations don't even refer to this album; the album was released two days ago, and some of the citations are more than ten years old. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or as a second choice redirect to DMK (band). While the citation overkill is no longer a significant issue, the fact remains that most of the citations predate the album's release by at least five years and thus would more appropriately be considered sources for an article about the band's overall career, not for this particular album. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:15, 16 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!} 06:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Halm[edit]

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

There is one valid entry, the surname list. The rest are just partial matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a bit of a stretch, as few of these usages are actually noted in the linked articles. I was able to confirm the existence of halm (botany) at wikt:halm. For the Antarctica hills, it sounds like a WP:PTM, it's hard to tell if people refer to these as "Halm". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:28, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move Halm (surname) to this title, and keep anything else that can be verified in a hatnote or a "See also" section. BD2412 T 14:05, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, I created both the disambiguation page and the surname article, albeit a long time ago (almost 5 years!). I think you guys are probably right that the surname article should be at the base name. I would do that, and move the dabpage to Halm (disambiguation). Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's unlikely that anyone will add encyclopedic content about the name itself, so what we have is effectively a dab page split in two. But such a split it not needed: there are eleven people with the name and then one other meaning (not counting the hills as they should be removed as clear WP:PTMs: halm is just the Bulgarian for 'hill'). So, Halm (surname) should just be merged into Halm (there's no need for moving the pages themselves: there's no substantial page history to dance around, and both pages were created by the same editor within minutes of each other). – Uanfala (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've merged all the people into the disambiguation page. When I created these 2 pages 5 years ago, I'd only just started editing. I wouldn't do that now, I would just create a single dabpage. Anyway, it's much neater now. I think this is in keeping with the opinions people have expressed here. Dr. Vogel (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are some editors who still prefer having dabs separate from surname indexes. I too was proceeding from that assumption when I first started dabbling in this area years ago. – Uanfala (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The hills are partial matches, and the redirect to Plant stem has a wee problem: it isn't mentioned there at all. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the name to the stem article. Dr. Vogel (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reframe as a disambiguation page, which is almost is already. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's currently a valid name list page. Per MOS:DABNAME:
For longer lists (of 12 or more entries), and as an alternative for a short list, an anthroponymy list article can be created...
—Bagumba (talk) 15:49, 15 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!} 06:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MYMO Wireless[edit]

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

A largely unsourced article on a defunct company. I was unable to find any independent source that satisfies CORPDEPTH. Fails NCORP. Maduant (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and India. Maduant (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed an old company but not notable as per Wikipedia notability criteria. Lordofhunter (talk) 12:33, 11 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!} 05:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alin Edouard[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. Joeykai (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Edouard was a highly-touted high school player, and the article includes coverage about his high school career, recruitment out of high school, and his initial plans to play for Syracuse. However, he left Syracuse before playing any football there and never ended up having a notable college career. His last try was at Rhode Island where he appeared in only one game as a backup. I think the early coverage is covered by WP:YOUNGATH and doesn't extend beyond the local coverage that is excluded by YOUNGATH. Cbl62 (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG, per nom and Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:26, 15 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 National Ringette League. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rive-Sud Révolution[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The only independent source in the article, [4], doesn't even mention the team. Looking for better sources didn't yield good results. Fram (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Canada. Fram (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 2 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!} 06:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Ringette League, without prejudice to re-creation if evidence of notability surfaces. Readers who search for this team should at least be sent to the article that covers the league it is part of and that mentions the team. (I note that there is a French Wikipedia equivalent to this article, but it does not look in very good shape, either.) TJRC (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Ringette League. An excellent solution. ProQuest search turned up 92 hits on the team, but I've quickly scanned and spot checked and they are mostly passing mentions in routine match reports and previews (very little info on the team at all, let alone sigcov...and incidentally...they seem to lose a lot). Cielquiparle (talk) 10:44, 13 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!} 23:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arya Permana[edit]

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

~~No indication of WP:GNG. The content is also entirely unsourced and as an orphan page. CPORfan (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)~~ ( Blocked sockpuppet of BFDIFan707, see investigation)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, and Indonesia. CPORfan (talk) 07:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment whilst I'm undecided on the merits of keeping the article, it is well sourced, so that claim is false. Spike 'em (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-sourced, no need for deletion present

_Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 09:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has now have sources, no reason for delete it. CPORfan (CPORfan) 09:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of BFDIFan707, see investigation)[reply]
Comment Being the world's fattest child (morbidly obese) is perhaps something that doesn't require an article, could be mentioned maybe briefly in another article. There are sources, but I don't think the person would be at GNG otherwise. If kept, we'd need to balance out the article so it doesn't focus solely on the obesity, it's not NPOV and rather one-sided. The article as it stands now can almost be used to shame the person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Oaktree b generally. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Well, the nominator, a sockpuppet, withdrew their nomination but there are still editors that have weighing their opinion in this discussion so I can't just close it. I don't see policy reasons to Keep or Delete this article it the discussion is open for another week or until consensus is reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this article is kept, it needs to be closely scrutinized for protection of the subject's privacy per WP:BLP, as the subject is still a minor, is relatively unknown, and is not a public figure. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Coverage is one-sided, only talking about the obesity. NPOV isn't possible as we know nothing about the person, other than their weight. Systemic bias would be introduced as we are only talking about the weight issue, the individual lives in a non-western country where media is perhaps more sensational that what we require to balance the sources.
Oaktree b (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article perhaps meets WP:GNG I will admit, but Metropolitan90 makes a very good point that this is a private individual who is a minor, and coverage only covers their obesity. This additionally seems to fall under WP:BLP1E, which means that we should not have an article for this individual at this time. - Aoidh (talk) 22:33, 9 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 West wind. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ponente[edit]

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

There is the nice template with "eight winds of the Mediterrenean" that suggests some notable grouping, but sources are lacking here and in interwikis I checked. BEFORE shows very little; there are some non-English mentions, and some 19th century mentions in passing [5], but I have trouble verifying most of the information and estabilishing WP:GNG here. We don't have an article for winds of the Mediterranean. Not sure what we can do here, but for now we have an unreferenced OR that needs to be dealt with one way or another. Ditto for Template:Mediterranean wind rose - this template is very WP:ORish, suggesting a classification according to whom? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Italy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That there are barely sources in English is not surprising. They are the names of the winds of the Mediterranean, there people speak rather "other" languages. But where is the logic to delete only one of the 8 winds? Then you would have to delete all 7 other winds and their articles as well, which in my opinion is nonsense. The goal of an encyclopedia is to be a reference work, so that the ignorant can find an explanation to a term that is foreign to them. Therefore, this article must be preserved and also mentions from the 19th century are not to be discredited. --Mike bzh ^BlaBla 12:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike bzh WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Some of those other articles are referenced, and if there are concerns about them, they can be discussed in separate nominations. You present no valid reason to keep this unreferenced article (see also WP:V, WP:OR). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not understand why it should be WP:OR, since this term is not an invention and can be found in recognized dictionaries. Siehe https://www-oxfordreference-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/view/10.1093/acref/9780198839033.001.0001/acref-9780198839033-e-6613?rskey=lAQWn7&result=1, https://www-oxfordreference-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/view/10.1093/acref/9780199541447.001.0001/acref-9780199541447-e-3185?rskey=lAQWn7&result=2, https://www.thefreedictionary.com/ponent. But also Météo-France makes a description of it on its page http://tempetes.meteo.fr/Les-vents-regionaux-mediterraneens.html or AEMET in Spain : https://meteoglosario.aemet.es/es/termino/970_poniente. The article should be expanded, but it's not coherent to delete it. --Mike bzh ^BlaBla 14:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The term may not be ORish, but the content is very much so. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to West wind. Nothing in this article indicates this meets WP:GNG criteria for a stand-alone article. It is just a dictionary definition for an Italian term that has an English equivalent. --Jamarast (talk) 08:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A admin may close this discussion whenever they see a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to West wind per Jamarast. Waggers TALK 13:55, 14 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. Star Mississippi 04:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Truong[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NN 2nd nom for student who got to show with a bunch of others at a minor catwalk do 10 years ago - apparently done nothing since, obvious WP:COI, fails WP:RS Plutonium27 (talk) 05:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, and Australia. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability criteria. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page lacks reliable sources; and I couldn't find any via Google News. Agree with nom's note re obvious WP:COI. Fails WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Unremarkable career. LibStar (talk) 02:31, 12 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. ✗plicit 04:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Voloshin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and Kazakhstan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the deletion logic and add that the article also does not meet Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Cycling KeepItGoingForward (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As creator, I started this back with the old NCYCLING guidelines, when winning a 2.1 stage was passable and he was a promising talent, but clearly never went any further in his career. Seacactus 13 (talk) 03:23, 10 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!} 04:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Mortimore[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSPORTS and WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and New Zealand. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree fails WP:GNG and WP:NCYC, as the creator at the time of creation WP:NCYC was participation based now its changed so I agree it does not meet the standard. Paulpat99 (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Sportsfan 1234 and Paulpat99's logic for deletion. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did not find that he is notable. A cycle ranking website has him as the 25,490 best cyclist, however I do not know what metrics they use and the page is sourced to Wikipedia. Bruxton (talk) 21:20, 15 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!} 02:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 Women's Rock Cup[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Football. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do think that until there is enough standalone content for there to be a non-redirect page on the WRC, it shouldn't be getting articles like this yet. RPI2026F1 (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: non-database coverage added. PamD 08:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added which show notability. Giant Snowman 10:43, 10 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!} 02:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mollie Karp[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Football. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 11 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!} 07:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deyan Yordanov[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only has passing mentions in some sources, and otherwise just has non-independent or primary sources. Does not appear to meet WP:NGYMNAST either Tristario (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Olympics, Bulgaria, and Florida. Tristario (talk) 01:44, 2 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!} 02:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NGYMNAST. LibStar (talk) 01:48, 11 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!} 01:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble Gum Interactive[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. A number of the provided sources are not reliable. LibStar (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. RPI2026F1 (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Australia. AllyD (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On my reading, the page only has 3 arguably reliable sources ([1], [2] and [3]) and even these are questionable as they appear to be simply routine coverage. I can't see this meeting WP:SIRS. Cabrils (talk) 01:39, 12 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!} 01:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Triston Wade[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. Joeykai (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources. RPI2026F1 (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Checked sources on the page. Was an NFL player but that's about it. Was not able to find anymore coverage or anything of significance. JojoMN1987 (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. @JojoMN1987: @RPI2026F1: Appears to pass GNG with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," see the following articles: JT grad Wade making his mark at UTSA from the Tyler Morning Telegprah; Player profile: Triston Wade from Rivals.com (which described him as "the most decorated player in the history of UTSA football" – a Division I FBS program); UTSA’s Wade looks to ‘step up’ in NFL from the San Antonio Express News; and UTSA player spotlight — Tristan Wade, DB from MYSA. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It has been updated to include reliable sources mentioned by @BeanieFan11, which could possibly be expanded further to include his high school career as well. There is plenty of coverage of him as he was one of the best defenders in UTSA history. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources added by BeanieFan. Certainly enough to pass GNG. Frank Anchor 03:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:SPORTCRIT for his collegiate career. Bruxton (talk) 21:25, 15 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. ✗plicit 01:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée français Guivat-Washington[edit]

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

No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No actual news coverage of the school. Sources are either dead or 404ing, with even the archive giving me a privacy error, so I cannot vet what they are saying. RPI2026F1 (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This school seems to be gradually closing down, i.e. not opening new lower grades, while preparing the seniors to graduate as planned. From an editorial perspective, we do not need these "campus within campus" schools unless both articles are really developed. Still, a redirect to Givat Washington is justified per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. gidonb (talk) 18:55, 10 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. ✗plicit 01:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kendriya Vidyalaya INS Mandovi[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, few (non-primary) sources online to add to the article, entire article is unsourced. TheManInTheBlackHat (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:16, 4 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!} 01:25, 9 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. ✗plicit 01:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Community School Kuwait[edit]

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

No significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Kuwait, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, could not find any other sources on the topic. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 02:32, 12 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. ✗plicit 00:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Machine Learning Hub[edit]

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

Seems to be an entry as part of a marketing circa 2017. There are two related articles that could be consolidated into other entries in ibm which has a section on products and offerings. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 00:40, 2 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!} 01:20, 9 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!} 03:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Heuzenroeder[edit]

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

I could not find any significant coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Weak delete. I found and added 2 RSs, which I've added to the page; and there are about a dozen short, non-sigcov articles in regional newspapers (via NewsBank database) which I didn't bother adding. Might just pass GNG... Cabrils (talk) 23:29, 2 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!} 01:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly fails WP:NBASIC Not much WP:SIGCOV available and reliable sources are to lacking deep coverage Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 12:32, 9 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. This discussion is divided between those editors who say this article subject is notable because of WP:GEOROAD and those who disagree with that position. I don't believe any additional relisting will result in a consensus and a closer shouldn't introduce their own interpretation of policy or my role becomes that of a participant rather than a discussion closer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

State Highway 93 (Karnataka)[edit]

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

Roadcruft, fails WP:GNG, doesn't get a pass from WP:GEOROAD either. Avilich (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW keep WP:GEOLAND explicitly says: International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable. Repeated discussions at WP:USRD/P and Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Precedents (including several recent discussions) have upheld this. Yes, this is India. But we have articles for most state highways in the US, and this AFD just goes to further systemic bias. I will try to search for sources, however with the number of concurrent AFD discussions it is becoming more difficult to do so. --Rs chen 7754 01:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides the ones I found below, I suspect there are likely more sources somewhere, however I am hitting a language barrier (main language is Kannada) and paywalls. We have to keep in mind WP:NEXIST as well - we know the road was in existence in some form back into the 19th century [6] and I suspect that newspapers of that era will be very hard to find. --Rs chen 7754 02:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rs chen 7754 01:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Typically" does not mean always, and the nutshell clearly indicates that there is no presumption of notability for anything other than populated places. What is more, artificial features are specifically required to have sources "independent of the bodies which have a vested interest in them", and the article only cites a government website, so the notability here is nonexistent. Avilich (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My concern as I will express elsewhere is that "typically" is here being interpreted to mean "never". --Rs chen 7754 02:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Typically" means "A geographical area, location, place or other object is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are, in the case of artificial features, independent of the bodies which have a vested interest in them". It does not mean whatever the cited Wikiprojects think, whose opinions are irrelevant as per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Avilich (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You can't say "snow" as the very first vote. No legitimate argument for notability is made, and "typically notable" does not mean "Screw significant sources! Eff GNG! Our project's articles are crap and we don't care!" Saying that most US state highways have articles is circular logic since many of those don't have much coverage that would establish notability either were it not for this theory of it being automatic. Some more substantive coverage is needed but not shown, merely a statement of existence. Reywas92^Talk 02:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found a source Karnataka Public Works Department but it is in other language and I am unable to translate it by Google Translate. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk} ! 08:52, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's a government source, it's not independent and doesn't contribute to notability. Avilich (talk) 14:30, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to convert the PDF to images to OCR to text to Google Translate to poorly translate the Kannada-language document into English to get a gist of what the document contains. It is mostly a description of the villages and cities the highway passes through, with some distances between certain points. The only clear piece of information is that State Highway 93 was assigned as part of the Karnataka Highways Act of 1964. V C 05:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in said document, page 12 [7] we read that all state highways are officially designated by the state government and published in the official Gazette. So this underlies the overall significance and inherent notability - this is more than one can say about most schools, for example. --Rs chen 7754 17:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Governments do a lot of things. To say anything that appears in official gazettes needs its own article here is bullshit. There is no such thing as "inherent notability" here and its official designation can be covered in List of state highways in Karnataka, nothing stopping expansion of that article either. Reywas92^Talk 18:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I thought legally defined populated places were inherently notable. --Rs chen 7754 18:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are "typically presumed to be notable". Doesn't mean we can't still discuss and delete or merge articles on them if coverage is inadequate. Reywas92^Talk 01:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this is any different from the case of state highways and why the same presumption doesn't apply here. Let's face it: neither you nor I can read Kannada, the native language. That language is not even using the Western alphabet and Google Translate barely works on it, so it is difficult to even search on it. The original creator vanished after three of their articles were redirected, seems coincidental to me. We can write at least a few paragraphs on a 120 mile road just using Google Maps, but suddenly that is not reliable and almost blacklist-worthy. So we are just going to further systemic bias and assume that a 120 mile road around since the 19th century has no possible sources in any language, online or offline, and thus delete it and set a precedent that will probably result in deleting every other state highway in Karnataka. Seems responsible to me. </sarcasm> --Rs chen 7754 21:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To add - it appears that this state highway was also discussed in the state legislature, see [8] - though thanks to the paywall and language barriers we have no idea what was said. Again, more than you can say about many state parks and schools. --Rs chen 7754 18:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps [9] indicates this is also known as Sirsi-Yellapur Road. We have these two articles [10][11] though even I would consider them borderline noteworthy. Google Books is more interesting, we have this [12] which is from a SPS company however the author might qualify as an expert. There is also a mention in here. (This doesn't mean that is all there is, or that any of us are necessarily done searching). --Rs chen 7754 02:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Also some brief mentions in [13] and [14]. --Rs chen 7754 02:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this serious? 1: primary source; 2: flood report, literally no coverage of the road whatsoever; 3: routine news reporting on heavy traffic, absolutely nothing on the road itself; 4: self-published source; 5: this is about localities near the road, not the road itself; 6: also covers sites near the road, not the road itself, again no coverage of the road whatsoever. Avilich (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a search on Karnataka "SH 93" and also came up with [15], though it is hard to tell what the excerpt was saying. Also [16]. To counter some of the rebuttals, biodiversity of what the road runs through is certainly relevant, not just for understanding what the road is today but possibly for environmental impacts. Same with the cultural significance. --Rs chen 7754 19:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOROAD. You can't ignore a consensus just because you don't agree with it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is not "All highways are automatically notable and entitled to a crap two-line article no matter what, end of story, you can't discuss anything about the poor sourcing or even consider a merge" (content already at List of state highways in Karnataka). Reywas92^Talk 20:37, 7 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!} 01:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOROAD. This is established by now. This isn't even new. Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above, GEOROAD doesn't confer intrinsic notability to roads. Avilich (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The main argument you made was that "typically" does not mean "typically". And GEOROAD does not give notability to all roads, but it does to all state highways unless there is some overriding reason why a particular state highway should not have it (which there is none in this case). --Rs chen 7754 17:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The main argument is that "typically" means "typically", not "always". The overriding reason is the lack of significant coverage, as detailed in the nutshell box in WP:NGEO. Avilich (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems we are interpreting the guideline in different ways. My own reading of WP:GEOROAD leads me to believe that this state highway is notable. From the guideline: ...Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable. The guideline goes on to say significant coverage is required for "lesser roads". Bruxton (talk) 21:40, 15 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. ✗plicit 00:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

English School Fahaheel Kuwait[edit]

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

Unreferenced for 9 years. Fails WP:NSCHOOL for lack of coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Kuwait. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:33, 9 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. ✗plicit 00:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American Creativity Academy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL for lack of coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Kuwait. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 9 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. ✗plicit 00:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée Français de Koweït[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Could not find significant coverage, French version of this article is unreferenced too. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Kuwait, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 9 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!} 00:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pingshanwei station[edit]

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

Have attempted tagging and redirecting this article, hoping that it would be improved. Currently, there is not a single in-depth source. Fails GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable station. --John B123 (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been expanded since nomination. As this is an interchange station on multiple lines, it doesn't make sense to redirect it to a line article. Garuda3 (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the seven sources currently in the article, a quick search found several others: [17][18][19][20][21][22]. I suspect a more thorough search would find more. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Mx Grangers research the fact that there were 6 sources found shows that the nominator has not done any research prior to nominating the article

NotOrrio (talk) 15:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 14 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!} 00:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Shider[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG criteria. Sarrail (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing found, obituary for her husband then the various streaming sites. Not at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV about Linda Shider and has deep coverage on Garry Shider Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am familiar with this subject. Linda Shider was a peripheral associate of the Parliament-Funkadelic collective, but never received significant coverage in her own right. Her occasional songwriting contributions could possibly be mentioned at the article for her husband Garry Shider. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Garry Shider (which is essentially the same thing as deleting). I've added the New York Times reference to Garry's page and mentioned Linda there as well. Linda's big moment in terms of media coverage came when she filed a lawsuit against Bridgeport Music Inc. in 2013 as the executor of Garry's estate, but that appears to have been dismissed. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:57, 10 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.