< July 18	July 20 >

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

The result was delete as there is no indication anyone wants to work on this in draft space, so without that it's just kicking it six months down the road. If someone wants it, no need to go through Refund, happy to provide. Star Mississippi 01:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Synergy Marine Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Citations are not good. Mostly some press releases and routine coverage. TheMermaidWomen (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TheMermaidWomen (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The company seems to be pretty large, I would expect a company of this size to pass WP:NCORP. Maybe there just aren't many articles in english? The article as it stands definitely requires improvement however. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 16:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: GoldMiner24 is right. This company appears to have indication of notability. Why cant we move this to draft space instead of deleting? Interested editors can work on this, find citations to establish notability.Akevsharma (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft: There seems to be a room for improvement. 2405:204:28E:3E17:34BF:13FF:FEE9:2065 (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We typically don't draftify 9 year old articles although a AFD closer could still choose that option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also thought I'd mention that the nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's especially confusing since the nominator's main account suggested keeping this article in the last AfD. But now that it's here, it seems pretty clear that the subject doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. FalconK (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Size or assets are specifically not criteria in WP:NCORP. Foreign language articles would be acceptable, but would need to be found and might not exist. As it stands, this page exists for the company's SEO or to improve their sales or something. FalconK (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brendon Fearon[edit]

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

Fearon is an un-notable criminal who had some short-lived notoriety for his involvement in the incident with Tony Martin (farmer) , per WP:BLP1E he does not need his own article. The fact we have 'Bleak House Burglary' and 'Subsequent Events' belies that he's only really known for one thing.

The Martin article contains sufficient information about Fearon. That article should possibly be changed to be about the event, rather than Martin, but I think this can be removed regardless. JeffUK (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a casual user of this site, I don't see why a page like this should be deleted. Its seems to be motivated by bias. I like reading about stuff like this and don't like it when information is deleted because someone doesn't want me to know things. 2604:2D80:6305:600:CC80:5002:CC0B:321C (talk) 10:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As nom has mentioned, anything relevant is already written or linked at the Tony Martin page. I do tend to agree all this material would be better served (if at all) as an event page, but IMHO this tragedy is unfortunately routine crime coverage which happened fifteen years ago and has no sustained coverage or long term resonance. The other article is not now up for discussion. This one is and should be deleted. BusterD (talk) 19:27, 24 July 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 12:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of gymnasts at the 2022 All-Japan Artistic Gymnastics Championships[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article topic is both discussed as a group & set by independent reliable sources. NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Right now all the sources are primary. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, mistook for the previous year. Just added 2 more links. NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NLIST. Most of the participants are non notable. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article fails WP:NLIST. Majority of sources are primary and most of the gymnasts involved are not notable. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NLIST, GNG and WP:NOTMIRROR. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:05, 23 July 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!} 06:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toilet talk[edit]

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

No indication that this is the main usage of the term "toilet talk" (may also refer to people talking to one another while on the toilet, for example). Seems to violate WP:NEO. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, textbook WP:NEO. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nandini Putri Arumni[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAD and WP:GNG zoglophie 18:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton and Indonesia. zoglophie 18:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kakao Games. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capcom Super League Online[edit]

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

A cancelled mobile game, planned to be launched only in South Korea, that had only a 4-day closed beta test (CBT). Does not meet GNG as most sourcing is routine reporting and not SIGCOV. Out of 12 sources in the reflist: 8 regarding announcement or start of CBT; one about the game being silently cancelled. One (inclusion in top-10 list) reinforces obscurity of the title. Two are reviews from Korean gaming reporters after CBT ended: one is quite superficial, the other has more substantial critique. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 10:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 17:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary info & arguments Thanks @Finngall, Shellwood for the assists.

As the page has refs in multiple languages, here is a brief summary and assessment as of this rev:

[1][2][6][7][9][10][11][12]: gaming news, multiple languages, all reporting on the same event: official PR announcement of CBT in Korea (dated around Sep 18) or start thereof (dated Oct 4). Very minimal summaries of game content and some graphics, all likely from official PR material. These are routine gaming news coverage regurgitating official PR, not strictly independent secondary source reporting.

[4]: "10 Canceled Capcom Games You Never Knew Existed"; its obscurity just reinforces lack of notability

[8]: (Korean) Cancellation reported after reporter inquires with Kakao Games; there had been no official announcement. Routine coverage.

Korean gaming news on 2018/10/08, reporters' impressions from Android CBT conducted on 4-7 Oct

- [3]: offers brief rundown of game modes and mechanics; more of a "preview" than a critical review

- [5]: more detailed review with some critique. plot summary, character collecting & leveling mechanics, combat mechanics, fanservice focus

A Google search for additional sources in English finds fandom.com articles, a small amount of gaming news coverage revolving around the CBT, and also some gameplay footage from the CBT. Searching in Korean also finds small amount of news about the CBT and cancellation. The game was quietly cancelled only a few months after being announced, so no other newsworthy events appear to have happened. There is certainly enough material to form a concise summary of what the game was intended to be like, or at least the state it was in during the beta test. However, WP:NOTDATABASE and we do not need to catalog every mobile videogame that did not make it to release. Some exceptions could conceivably exist, but in this case there is nothing particularly remarkable reported of its development process nor is it interesting from a game design standpoint. Being a Capcom "all-stars" title should not confer any inherited notability.

In terms of subject-specific notability, the essay WP:NGAME has no guidance on unreleased or cancelled games. For something comparable, as a point of reference we can consider the guidelines of WP:NMUSIC which has a section WP:UNRELEASED on unreleased material or future albums. For unreleased material, an unreleased album may qualify if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it ...[but] this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects. For future releases, albums with release dates in the near future [...] confirmed by reliable sources may have articles. As a theoretical example, consider Duke Nukem Forever, which would have met the "high-profile" criteria due to extensive reporting on its delays and development woes well before its eventual 2011 release — see its article, circa 2007 which was already quite substantial.

Since this title is did not have a particularly high profile, and did not have a firm release date announced, that suggests it would not meet the bar for inclusion as a standalone article. However, some of the material would certainly be worth incorporating into other related articles, such as Kakao Games, Capcom or List of Capcom games.

— 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete, only was released for a total of 4 days for a beta test. There are a bunch of sources and yeah it was made by a notable company, but we don't need to catalog every beta test. It could be merged into a greater Capcom article if anything is really worth saving here. Andrevan@ 23:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kakao Games per above and WP:PRESERVE. A sentence or two on its development history would suffice. czar 03:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lole Courtois[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAD and WP:GNG zoglophie 16:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and France. zoglophie 16:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 19 July 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seoul International Youth Film Festival[edit]

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

Prod declined in 2020 with "abundance of sources in Korean". Deprodded did not respond to request to elaborate (Talk:Seoul International Youth Film Festival). The article is still unreferenced and doesn't link to these sources, and WP:GNG does not appear to be met based on the text. My BEFORE reveals little (but maybe someone fluent in Korean could find more?). Korean wiki article is little better, it has two sources, one appears to be dead, the other is about a related scandal [1] "Seoul International Youth Film Festival Chairperson sentenced to 1st trial for 'embezzlement of subsidy 150 million'" so it's not WP:SIGCOV about the event. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and South Korea. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Received in-depth coverage every year it occurred: 2017 [2], 2016 [3] [4], 2015 [5], and so on. The embezzlement scandal seems to have killed it. ✗plicit 13:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are those reliable sources? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss sourcing's reliability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 19 July 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Macherla Niyojakavargam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Macherla Niyojakavargam

Unreleased film that is too soon and does not satisfy film notability guidelines. This article has already been moved to draft space twice, once after a previous AFD found that it was not ready for article space and was closed as Draftify. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macherla Niyojakavargam. However, the article has been moved back to article space, although it is still an unreleased film. There is nothing in this article that refers to significant coverage by independent sources. It should be either speedy-deleted as G4, or deleted. or draftified again, and the title should be Extended-Confirmed Protected in article space so that a neutral reviewer can move it into article space when the film is released and reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The film stars three actors with Wikipedia articles - so they are notable. The film was produced/is under the banner of a production house with a Wikipedia article - so that production house is notable. The film is being released next month, in August 2022, so it's not too soon. The article has multiple sources - being that they are mostly not in English I take it on faith that they are reliable. WP:NFF states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." but this film has finished principal photography, has been edited, and is slated for release in about 30 days so, again, it's not WP:TOOSOON. So I say Keep. Shearonink (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments - Per Inclusion criteria for film notability (and yes, I get that this criteria states the verb as "was" meaning the distribution has already happened)

The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio". Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited.

I think I should mention something that struck me about this particular project. If this film was a Black Widow movie in the MCU, or a film starring Robert De Niro/Meryl Streep/Margot Robbie/etc or someone/something similar and it was opening next month, there would be an article about it and we probably wouldn't even be discussing the issue. But because this is a Telugu-language film made for the Indian market, we are discussing it. And maybe that spills over into an English-speaking POV or even bias. An appropriate guideline to perhaps keep in mind, even though it is for an associated creative industry, is WP:MUSICBIO which states in part:

Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

- Shearonink (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete: WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:NFILM at present. Soft deletion since it may become notable after release and thus a prior AfD should not impede a future article 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The film stars actors/actresses who have their separate Wikipedia articles, the songs of the film are also released, the film will soon release on 12 August so what's the point of deleting the article. If it was a Hollywood film the article will be created months back before the release date and nobody will debate for delition, but if it is an Indian film everyone has some or the other problems and then they ask to delete the article.

Regards User:MNWiki845 (talk) 24 July 2022.

Weak keep despite MNWiki845 claiming some sort of bias against Indian films, there is some reliably sourced information here and no doubt there will be more as the film gets released in a month's time. It does feel like the article was created too soon but its already in existence now and not far from release date. Can always be nominated post-release if it hasn't expanded further etc. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hindutva. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Yes, Hindutva No[edit]

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

"Hindu Yes, Hindutva No" is a phrase that appears not once in any source given in this article and search only throws up WP and derivative Wikis. It needs to go, and quickly. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NEO. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Hinduism, and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the alternative name in the lead (“Yes to Hinduism, No to Hindutva”) is at least mentioned online, so it is not a total hoax. However, I cannot find “Hindu Yes, Hindutva No” even so much as used in RS, so there are at minimum substantial content issues here. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article's title is not mentioned anywhere similarly, which fails its notability as per WP:GNG. But the content in this article defines another thing. It looks like it should be renamed as Hinduism versus Hindutva or Hinduism and Hindutva. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 16:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hindutva: This neologism is yet to find its own significance and the actual use of it not happened so that this slogan will become notable, right now we just have one instance of it. QueerEcofeminist[they/them/their] 05:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This topic is about Hindutva versus Hinduism or the differences between the two, I dont think merging it with Hindutva is the right thing to do. It may be renamed to make it clear. This article on Print also covers the debate, notice the different wordings. ‘Yes to Hinduism, no to Hindutva’ is lazy liberal response, and 3 decades late Venkat TL (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NEO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete the subject doesnt have sustained significant coverage in reliable sources, thus failing WP:GNG. Also, per nomination. The article also has borderline issue of WP:SYNTH. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hindutva#Criticism_and_apologetics, plausible search term but not enough for own article >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to clear my position, I support both keep and merge as alternatives to deletion. Venkat TL (talk) 08:34, 28 July 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!} 23:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daryoosh Ghorbani[edit]

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

his medals are not important. he doesn't pass wp:N and wp:GNG.the article looks like CV and Advertising. Miha2020 (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, the article is written in a way to make him looks notable and important but I don't think so. Sports2021 (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:20, 26 July 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 Singer (Sri Lanka). (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sisil[edit]

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

Unsourced, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Or redirect to Singer (Sri Lanka) as alt. Amon Stutzman (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sri Lanka. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – @Amon Stutzman: Why do you state that the article is unsourced? When you nominated it for deletion, it had (and as of this post, still has) three sources used as inline citations (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I can't find much to support its independant notability. FalconK (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Feel free to renominate with a valid rationale. – bradv^🍁 21:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Big! (Betty Who album)[edit]

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

Uricdivine (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Uricdivine (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --Vaco98 (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This article was literally minutes old and its infancy when it was nominated for deletion. It is being built out by me and is heavily source. Since the album has a solid release date, it does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. There's no reason to delete it. SomethingToTellYou (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep due to absence of deletion rationale, as per C1 of WP:CSK CT55555 (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SOAP, blatant pre-release Music PR drive, seriously. Acous mana 09:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in a weird spot, because I sort of agree, but still think the nominator needs to say why they nominated it, or this whole process is wrong. CT55555 (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of the process here, the nominator has responded positively to feedback left on their user talk, even if they haven't refined their nomination message here. @Uricdivine: Would you like to add a little to your nomination to explain why you nominated the article? —C.Fred (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Betty Who and send to Draft: space (second choice: delete). Had either of the singles released in advance of the album's release charted, I'd say we'd have a case for going ahead and creating an article. However, the article fails to assert notability per WP:NALBUM: the BroadwayWorld piece is just a rewrapped press release, and the Paper interview focuses on Who, not Big!. If this album were by The Who, there'd be enough press coverage to easily meet WP:GNG, and I'd have no problem with an article at this point, since we have a title and a release date. However, with all respect to Betty Who, it's a little more of a speculative gaze into the crystal ball to expect this album to chart upon release. That said, rather than deleting the article outright, I'd like to park it in draft space for now, so we can continue to refine it and bring it live quickly if it hits specific notability in the future. —C.Fred (talk) 11:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Procedural Keep - This is already a mess with recommendations to keep or delete or redirect or draftify, and the reason it's a mess is because voters are trying to figure out what is or is not wrong with the article after getting no reasoning from the nominator. That runs afoul of WP:NOTARG and a procedural keep is mandated by WP:CSK. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would have made the same recommendation pretty much regardless of the rationale laid out by the nominator, so I don't see a reason to stop this discussion just to restart another one immediately afterward. —C.Fred (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...but if this keeps going, it will probably end up as an equally useless "no consensus". ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need a speedy close and then anyone who sees a reason to delete can start a process based on that. Currently we're in the ridiculous situation of the author not knowing why someone wants to delete their article and then first comment agreeing with the nominators reasoning, despite there being none. CT55555 (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to flag this on the talk page in case any admin want to create a solution CT55555 (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've sought help https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Strange_AfD_-_no_reason_to_delete_provided_-_admin/closer_input_welcomed CT55555 (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep invalid nomination. Artw (talk) 20:43, 20 July 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!} 05:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martin de Jonge[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. zoglophie 12:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Austria, and Netherlands. zoglophie 12:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : point 3 of WP:NBAD is met, although it still requires to meet WP:GNG. zoglophie 13:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Former national champion. There is so little exposure to this sport. Plus played during the late "lull years". We can't fix that. gidonb (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I failed to find any sources that would contribute to GNG being met. Please ping me if sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:28, 22 July 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 Queen Mary University of London#Schools, faculties and departments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Commercial Law Studies[edit]

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

Not notable enough on its own to warrant an article in my opinion. No external referneces. Elshad (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Elshad (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A redirect to Queen_Mary_University_of_London#Schools,_faculties_and_departments could provide an WP:ATD, preserving its various links? AllyD (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 19 July 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 and rename, which I will do. This is a challenging one. We really need Berlin Nobody for a crystal clear Keep, but the sourcing BusterD found is what keeps from being a no consensus. There is no possible outcome where this is deleted. Star Mississippi 02:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Scott[edit]

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

doesn’t seem to meet WP:GNG, directed one feature length film but has little to no reliable sources about her. Known more for being Ridley Scott’s daughter LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing is not even close to showing a pass of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a few articles about her from 2009 when her debut film was released, for example "Ridley Scott's daughter takes the family firm in a new direction" in The Times (Saturday, Oct. 24, 2009) and "Gladiator in a ring of her own" (Friday, Nov. 27, 2009), also "LIKE FATHER, LIKE DAUGHTER: RIDLEY'S GIRL PREMIERES NEW MOVIE" in the Dublin Evening Herald (26 October 2009). She's due to direct "Berlin Nobody" which seems to return quite a few hits on Google News. Not sure if it's enough though Piecesofuk (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist in light of new sources and upcoming film.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename + weak keep based on good faith. A really common name in collision with Jordan Scott (poet); other potentially/kinda/sorta-notable examples include a Jamaican triple-jumper ([6],[7]), a Chicago artist/photographer, a Utah Tech Trailblazers football defensive back, etc... first thing should be to move this page to qualified title Jordan Scott (filmmaker); creation of disambiguation page will depend on keep/delete outcome. As for notability: none inherited from her father. Existing mentions in Wikipedia: after excluding ((Ridley Scott)) using PetScan we get about two dozen incoming links mainly related to existing filmography. Her single feature-length release did not make enough impact to single-handedly confer notability on its own; upcoming film is WP:TOOSOON to tell, so far looks like we have mainly casting news with shooting reportedly to begin in September. Initial instinct is draftify, but CSD G13 deletion is a concern; I do wish we could stipulate Berlin Nobody release (or cancellation) + 6mths. I don't have access to the three newspaper articles mentioned above, so it'll be a good faith upgrade to keep based on just the article titles we've been given. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've just added three reliable sources directly detailing her work as a "fledgling film director" from her 2005 Prada commercial film, one from the New York Times and one from the print version of The Independent (which I've clipped from Newspapers.com). The Independent's story directly details the subject for the entire article and gives substantial information of the collaboration with her father on their other shared projects. Put these few together with the material User:Piecesofuk brought to our attention and this easily meets GNG, possessing significant coverage in diverse reliable sources independent of the subject. I'm seeing several more where that came from. This isn't close. BusterD (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added another three page feature article from ES Magazine. This page and The Independent by themselves meet GNG. BusterD (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If kept, I'd like to endorse the suggestion made above that this page be moved to Jordan Scott (filmmaker) and appropriate da links be applied to the tops of both works. No clear primary topic. BusterD (talk) 21:15, 23 July 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!} 23:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shayan Javadi[edit]

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

Not finding coverage of them. What's listed in their article, being a young translator, doesn't pass the bar of notability in my mind. I don't believe this passes WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashbery Home School[edit]

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

Not notable. No sources whatsoever. External links are mostly archives of dead websites. SVTCobra 22:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Education, and New York. SVTCobra 22:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like this school/conference existed for about three years and ended with or just after Ashberry's death. While it was more plausibly an article topic while he was alive, now I think it should be deleted unless in the future someone writes about it extensively.--Jahaza (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hatred of a Minute[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found nothing suitable to pass WP:NEXIST at Newspapers.com and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a link at DVD Talk; needs more coverage in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found an AICN review and added it along with the DVD Talk one. I concur with the newspapers search. The best one I found was this, but it's too short to be seen as a review for my tastes. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This comes up in a search. I don't know what it has in it. I'm leaning towards it being a trivial source, but hopefully there's more. At the very least it would still be helpful in adding info since it covers a search for investors. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone can access them, this and [8] look somewhat promising but there's not enough to determine if they're actually usable or if they're just trivial sources. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, I think I've thoroughly mined for possible coverage and found not much more than you have. I suppose very technically this could pass, but it's not enough for me to really be comfortable with a keep given the otherwise lack of coverage or anything truly promising that would imply more coverage. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding the Ain’t It Cool News review, User:ReaderofthePack. In my opinion, I consider the reviews from both AICN and DVD Talk as sufficient enough to pass WP:NFILM. However, I don’t want to withdraw the nomination too soon unless consensus agrees that the two aforementioned reviews suffice. And if this discussion will be closed as “no consensus,” I’ll be completely fine with that. The Film Creator (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both DVD Talk and AICN are reliable sources. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination per consensus. The DVD Talk and AICN reviews suffice. The Film Creator (talk) 12:41, 24 July 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. While numerous sources have been put forward, I see consensus that they do not meet the requirements to establish notability. I considered relisting this to allow for further discussion, but the discussion's direction of travel seems very much in one direction, and I strongly doubt whether further discussion would change the outcome. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andersonville Theological Seminary[edit]

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

Quite clear this is promotionary in tone and does not demonstrate significant coverage. The information that is here is provided almost directly by primary sources, namely the organisation itself and there's no evidence of impact or significance of the institution. Furthermore, as a cynic, it seems the list of "notable alumni" is being used to establish some form of inherited notability, which simply isn't appropriate. Either way, the institution is not notable per WP:NCORP. It's been tagged since Dec 21 as such and I don't think its gotten any better. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I would expect a tertiary college with 3000 students to be notable, but the emphasis is on education by extension, i.e. part-time courses; its awards are unaccredited; and almost all information comes from an internal source. I am very dubious of its notability, but am willing to be proved wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I am under the impression that any presumption of notability for colleges and universities hinges on accreditations, something this school lacks. 174.212.229.73 (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies): All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations ahas nd must satisfy those criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the presumption of significant coverage. It's certainly a very real seminary (as opposed to a diploma mill) and lots of hits in both GBooks and GNews. Now, most of these are of the form "xxx attended Andersonville" but it makes me thing significant coverage exists if only I went through enough pages of Google results. St Anselm (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV and all it tells us is that someone attended the institution not that the institution is noteworthy (see WP:NSCHOOL). >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 09:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the non-profit seminary (which is over 40 years old) has apparently over 30,000 graduates and 3,000 enrolled students. Furthermore, the seminary has over a million a year in operating expenses and is a certified institution with the National Christian Counselors Association (NCCA) and had previously been an affiliate of the Association for Biblical Higher Education until ABHE discontinued the affiliate program. ATS is a Member of the Association of Christian Distance Education (ACCESS), and also a member of the Council of Private Colleges of America (CPCA), and the United States Distance Learning Association (USDLA). Andersonville Theological Seminary was chartered by the State of Georgia as a non-profit Christian seminary and was approved by the Georgia Nonpublic Postsecondary Education Commission for Religious Exemption. Andersonville Theological Seminary has been approved by the Internal Revenue Service as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization. ATS students come from 24 foreign countries and all 50 states and the student body is theologically, culturally, and denominationally diverse. Make way for Tigers (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of these things are great but they don't address our notability guidelines for schools. The request to delete this article is no way a reflection on the quality or the efficacy of the organisation outside of Wikipedia. Lots of organisations, institutions and people don't end up on Wikipedia but it doesn't diminish their worth or value. However, Wikipedia is a digital encyclopaedia of things which are significant. The seminary is small and its impact is minimal. It has not received independent coverage that warrants a page on wikipedia. That information is without discrimination and again, does not reflect on the institution, its value or its purpose. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen claims that the seminary was "chartered by the State of Georgia" before. No actual sources though. At least not any that don't either come from the seminary itself, or fail to actually support the claim. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Siginficant Outside Sources: Mr. Andy I found a source showing Andersonville Theological Seminary (though I prefer the original founding name of Andersonville Baptist Seminary) is in fact a religious exempt institution with the state of Georgia ^[1] This list is current (as of 2021 Annual Report) and is from the Georgia Nonpublic Postsecondary Education Commission. Without question this Baptist institution is in good standing with the state. Also keep in mind the seminary has a significant economic impact to both Albany, Georgia and to Mitchell County where the seminary is headquartered. Within the last few months the The Albany Herald wrote about the notable founder Dr. Hayes and the seminary he founded which can be found here: ^[2]. Make way for Tigers (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Wikipedia's notability requirements are for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Significant coverage actually directly discussing the subject of the article for which notability is being asserted. That is how notability is determined here. It is the only way notability is determined here. The naming of the subject in a list isn't 'significant coverage', regardless of what the list is of, or who it is published by. And mere assertions by contributors about significance to a local economy are of no relevance whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry The Albany Herald does not meet the liberal prestige of the New York Times that you require. But the fact is it's a good newspaper and is notable. Make way for Tigers (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV explicitly says the subject "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". The Albany Herald article is indeed an independent reliable source providing significant coverage. St Anselm (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is independent coverage, but 'significant'? A few rather vague sentences about the number of students etc isn't much to build an article around. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well here is a link to the IRS, and all of Andersonville Baptist Seminary's tax returns over the last four years: https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/detailsPage?ein=581989996&name=Andersonville%20Baptist%20Seminary%20Inc.&city=Camilla&state=GA&countryAbbr=US&type=returnsSearch --> Does that help? I ask because it shows over a million a year in educational activities (programming, salaries, etc.) which is actually alot for a seminary. Make way for Tigers (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again it only demonstrates the number of students and/or revenue. What we haven't got is a bunch of reliable independent sources talking about the seminary or its impact. Notability is not implied just because an organisation has x number of students or is proponent/champion of X Bible unless they have received coverage from that which is independent of the movement itself. I think its clear that opposition to the deletion of the article is everything to do with promotion and feeling it is worthy instead of anything based on evidence or fact. I do wonder if people realise that wikipedia articles are not a given right or entitlement, its not the end of the world to not have and they do not help with search engine optimisation. At this point, can I recommend you take a deep breath, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass? >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 16:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Outside Sources about the Seminary Make way for Tigers (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Mapquest - https://www.mapquest.com/us/georgia/andersonville-theological-seminary-304022874
- Seminary.com - http://www.seminary.com/Andersonville%20Theological%20Seminary-p-11-profile.html
- Above & Beyond Counseling Academy - https://academy.aandbcounseling.com/ncca-seminaries-2/andersonville-theological-seminary/
- Academia.edu - https://andersonvilleseminary.academia.edu/
- CauseIQ - https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/andersonville-theological-seminary,581989996/
- GuideStar.org - https://www.guidestar.org/profile/58-1989996
- Orgcouncil.com - https://www.orgcouncil.com/ein/581989996
- LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/school/andersonville-theological-seminary-ats/
- Jostens - https://www.jostens.com/apps/store/customer/1026748/Andersonville-Theological-Seminary/
- Logosoftware.com - https://andersonville.logosoftwear.com/
- ProPublica.org - https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/581989996
- Google Maps - https://www.google.com/maps/place/Andersonville+Baptist+Seminary/@31.2294248,-84.2143278,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x88ed9c26acc8d94f:0x4381e559b7daa5ca!8m2!3d31.2294248!4d-84.2121391
- Christiananswers.net - https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/creationist-schools-a-z.html
- CPCA-edu.us - https://cpca-edu.us/wp-content/uploads/Andersonville-Theological-Seminary-History.pdf
- SCMi Institute - http://institute.soulcareministries.org/degrees-transfer-assistance/
- United States Distance Learning Association - https://usdla.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/USDLA-Non-Profit-Members-16-17-6-20-17.pdf

Make way for Tigers - yes there is some mentions there which are notable (except LinkedIn which is self-published, and Seminary.com which is not independent of the topic etc.) but the coverage isn't significant. Many of these sources just tell us that the institution exists or its links to the of Georgia. That said, whether or not the institution is in good state is not in question nor is its value to the community. WP:ORGSIG says "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it.. Furthermore WP:INHERITORG says An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it, so even if the seminary's founder or principle is notable, it doesn't mean that the wider organisation is. WP:ORGDEPTH provides some examples of the type of coverage that doesn't establish notability, much of this is exemplified in the section about academics and accreditation. I understand you have personal affection for the seminary either as a theologian or previous alumni of it, or perhaps due to religion however the process being gone through here is not designed to disrespect the topic, religion or seminary. Its an assessment against our objective criteria and would be applied equally whatever services the institution delivered. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 11:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lil-unique1 - I am of the opinion that you are not being disrespectful to this seminary. Furthermore, I appreciate that this discussion has been brought up as well. I just think with all the things discussed (Anderson Baptist Seminary's huge number of graduates, large yearly operating expenses, dozens of outside sources, significant economic impact to the region, etc.) that if this seminary is not deemed notable by Wikipedia then perhaps 99% of all seminaries (not affiliated with a large liberal university) would also fail the notability test. It's a slippery slope and I object strongly to deleting any seminary from Wikipedia. Also, were you aware that Andersonville is a thought leader in the King James Promotion Movement? Make way for Tigers (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That you personally 'object to the deleting of any seminary from Wikipedia' is of no concern here, since this is a discussion about whether the specific subject of this AfD discussion meets notability criteria as they currently stand. If you wish to propose a change to the well-established Wikipedia-wide criteria, you will have to do so elsewhere, since it cannot be done here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting seminaries that are not liberal enough is of concern. It's called censorship. Make way for Tigers (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The politics of this seminary are of no relevance to this discussion whatsoever. Nobody has mentioned them. The article says nothing about them. Wikipedia policy says nothing about such matters. This supposed 'censorship' is a figment of your imagination. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a figment. The seminary and it's Doctrinal Statement (https://andersonvilleseminary.com/about/doctrinal-statement/) is not politics (it's actually the heart of the institution). The fact is Andersonville Baptist Seminary is an Independent Baptist institution and has been a standard-bearer for the KJV-Only movement for over 40 years now (how can that not be considered when the seminary's notability is being called into question?) Make way for Tigers (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For anything to be 'considered' here, we need published sources directly discussing it. Not mere assertions from contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well Andersonville Baptist Seminary was included on the list for "Seminaries teach a literal Genesis, including six-day, young-Earth Creation". Here is the source: https://christiananswers.net/q-eden/creationist-schools-a-z.html --> The fact of the matter is the seminary is well respected in the Independent Baptist community. I may be able to find additional sources if needed Make way for Tigers (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of the Andersonville Seminary amongst a list of 207 such institutions does not constitute evidence that it has been "a standard-bearer for the KJV-Only movement for over 40 years now". I'd ask that you please stop spamming this page with links to mere mentions. We need evidence for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Not passing mentions, accompanied by assertions that this is evidence of significance. It isn't. Not according to well-established Wikipedia notability criteria. The fundamental criteria are the same for any topic, and they aren't open to negotiation here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's offensive to say I am spamming the page (and its difficult to quantify independent 3rd party evidence of Andersonville Baptist Seminary's direct contribution to the KJV-Only movement). But let's apply some critical thinking here. Look at Andersonville's Doctrinal Statement and the student catalog and it clearly states that it is a King James Version only seminary. But think about all those students over the last 40 years that were taught seminary courses via the King James Bible. That is approximately 30,000 pastors that are going to be spreading the KJV-Only message to their congregations. Clearly the seminary has made a profound impact on the KJV-Only Movement. Make way for Tigers (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinions on 'profound impacts' are of precisely zero relevance to this discussion. Provide the sources required to demonstrate notability according to Wikipedia criteria. They are the only thing that matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added a couple of references to the article. St Anselm (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

StAnselm - Looks great. Make way for Tigers (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single reference meets WP:NORG criteria for establishing notability. We have nothing that provides in-depth information and containing "Independent Content". Topic fails NORG. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, none of the Keep !voters have provided any convincing WP:NORG guideline-based justification. We have a GHITS argument as the basis for a "presumption" of notability. We have another telling us the stats (all PRIMARY sourced) and about how big the org is as a reason. Then we have a plethora of references which do little more than confirm the organizations existence and leads me to question whether the !voter has grasped our notability criteria (I mean, mapquest reference and a google maps references??). HighKing⁺⁺ 14:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~strike double !vote - I disagree - these are strong sources (Albany Herald, The State of Georgia, United States Distance Learning Association, Academia.edu, CauseIQ, Orgcouncil.com, Jostens, ProPublica, etc..). The bottom line is this reek of liberal elitism and taking a derogatory action against a well-established Independent Baptist seminary that has been around for over 40 years with over 30,000 graduates. Slippery slope and all seminaries not affiliated with a large liberal university could now start getting deleted in en masse. This would be a terrible precedent to start. Make way for Tigers (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll ignore the ad hominen remarks and seeing as how you are a relative newbie, I'll try to explain why this topic fails our guidelines. Claims such as "been around for 40 years with over 30,000 graduates" does not mean the organization meets our criteria and whoever closes this AfD will only look at reasoning based on our guidelines. First off, the quantity of coverage is irrelevant - more sources does not mean "better" nor means the topic is notable. Here are the main sections you need to understand.

Since this topic is an organization, WP:SIRS requires that *each* reference (that is used to establish notability) must meet all the criteria, and we require multiple sources that contains significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth".
WP:ORGDEPTH requires deep or significant coverage that provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. It also provides examples of trivial coverage to include simple listings or compilations, standard notices, announcements, routine coverage of meetings or changes in the organization, etc.
WP:ORGIND requires that for a reference to count towards establishing notability, it must contain "Independent Content". That is original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company, so references that rely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, anything which originates from the company and where the journalist/publication does not add anything original that is also in-depth and about the organization, fails ORGIND.

Most of the examples you've provided falls under trivial coverage. A list of members. A listing from the Academia website which appears to allow anybody to create a listing and upload documents (no oversight). A listing of their tax status and their statutory financial returns. The Albany Herald article relies entirely on an interview with Hayes and has no "Independent Content" containing in-depth information on the topic org. There's nothing here that meets our criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a 41 year-old college or university which issues doctorate degrees. The article includes references from WP:RS journals such as The Christian Century (Vol. Nº 130, Issue #4) and ~~The Christian Century~~ Christian Higher Education (Vol N. 3, Issue #2), for example. As a degree-granting post-secondary institution, there is no reason to delete the article. XavierItzm (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The degrees issued by this seminary are unrecognised by appropriate accrediting agencies, as are all other qualifications they provide. As for the references from 'The Christian Century', they do not appear to constitute 'significant coverage' as defined in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Just more mentions in passing, as have already been provided. When this AfD was started, I was unsure whether the seminary would meet the notability criteria, and repeated attempts to assert notability based around such meagre sourcing suggests to me that the required in-depth coverage doesn't actually exist. Accordingly, since I've not said so explicitly before, I am !voting delete. Notability has to be demonstrated, not simply asserted. In this case, it hasn't been, and I see no prospect that it will be. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again with the whole non-accredited attacks. The fact is up until a few months ago the seminary was an affiliate of Association for Biblical Higher Education, and the ABHE discontinued the program for all affiliates (inexplicably and without notice based on what I could research on the internet). So what happened to the affiliates=It left all 80+ seminaries/bible colleges scrambling to do something with their accreditation ASAP. For example, this is true of both Louisiana Baptist University (LBU) and Andersonville Baptist Seminary (and both institutions have upped their game big time recently in terms of quality). Why don't you cut these evangelical Baptist seminaries a break (I'm sorry they don't meet the ivory tower standards that Wikipedia enforces with its Liberal Fascism). These Independent Baptist schools are just trying to train some pastors and save them some money. Don't take punitive action against Andersonville and LBU because ABHE pulled a shifty move to the detriment of 80+ former ABHE affiliates (It's just not right in my opinion). Make way for Tigers (talk) 00:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've come across someone simultaneously asking people to 'cut them a break' while calling them 'fascists' before. A novel approach, but not going to get anywhere, since policy doesn't permit cutting breaks. Or calling people fascists - the latter is however liable to get you blocked from further participation in this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course policy permits cutting people a break; it's called WP:IAR.St Anselm (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR is supposed to be applied "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia". And as you are no doubt well aware, its application is rare, frequently controversial, and liable to be reversed unless very well justified. I don't think that anyone would get far arguing that WP:N should be ignored because someone has just called us fascists. Good luck with that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Woah there buddy - I believe the Wikipedia community is guilty of prestige whoring and enforcement of a leftist agenda (which constitutes the enforcement of Liberal Fascism). But was not attacking you personally as a fascist. Make way for Tigers (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have reviewed the article, checked for additional sourcing online, and read through this discussion. The keep arguments boil down to: sources must exist (WP:MUSTBESOURCES), the age of the school (WP:ITSOLD), the fact that it is a real school (WP:ITEXISTS), and the number of graduates (WP:BIGNUMBER). The keep arguments are not in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. None of the keep rationales so much as suggest notability, let alone explain how the article demonstrates notability. WP:NSCHOOL is clear that if we consider a seminary a university-adjacent program (being a graduate-level theological institution), that it must satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ORG. If however we consider it a for-profit institution, it must satisfy WP:NCORP. I'm not going to put forward an argument about which it would fall under, because the end result is the same: it fails every notability guideline that could apply to it. There's plenty of primary/non-independent sources and trivial coverage, but nothing of substance that demonstrates notability for the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability must be demonstrated with actual identified sources, not hypothetical sources that might exist. Arguments to age, existence or number of graduates are unpersuasive. The most promising source, the Christian Higher Education article, only lists the article subject in a single table, not even mentioning it in prose. Appears to fail notability criteria whether judged by NSCHOOL, NCORP or GNG. -Ljleppan (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Excessive use of primary sources. Gusfriend (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks in-depth coverge in reliable, independent sources. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:56, 27 July 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 Byron White#Personal life. I think that a small bit of the article content could be merged to the redirect target. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy White (field hockey)[edit]

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

Non notable biography of a woman who never played in the Olympics, and is most well known for being the daughter of a Supreme Court Justice. This article can simply be summed up in a few words on Byron White's article. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 20:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 20:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Getting a Congressional Gold Medal seems like an WP:ANYBIO pass to me. Am I missing something? CT55555 (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does remind me of that time I was named Time Person of the Year. St Anselm (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It usually is not if it is part of a group award, which this was. The CGM can be awarded to individuals, but also to large groups of people as a "blanket award" to recognize their collective accomplishments or contributions. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I respect this counter argument. And if getting the medal and the Olympics was the only claim to fame, I think I'd strike my vote. But she's also in a hall of fame, also other encyclopedic content here, this isn't one of those stubs with one line, so I remain keep. CT55555 (talk) 00:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per CT55555. Plus making the national team for the olympics even if they never went because of the boycott. W C M_email 07:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ even participanting in the Olympics is not ground for notability, only medaling, so making an Olympic team and not participating is even less grounds for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Byron White#Personal_life. The references aren't enough to merit an individual article. Additionally, the Congressional Gold Medal was a blanket award for a group of people and that usually does not indicate individual notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GPL93. Since we have an article on her father we can make any needed mention there. We do not need a separate article on her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I really thought I would be able to find GNG-meeting coverage here. But I was not. All I found was a paragraph in Stanford: Home of Champions and a brief New York Times article about her wedding ([9]). So redirect. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:28, 26 July 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!} 20:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Electricity Producing Condensing Furnace[edit]

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

This is a cleverly written essay, not an article topic. Sourcing is much about patents and not about sig cov from RS. As such it fails GNG. Padding with wikipedia cites and cites to minor aspects don't cut it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essay, not an encyclopedic article.Slywriter (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trimmed the essay and the two circular refs, but there's no evidence of notability by WP:GNG. The sources are mostly primary, and the only decent secondary source I can find is the 1989 Popular Science magazine article cited. Storchy (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG. The majority of the sources in the article and available online are primary, authored by the inventor himself. There is one short piece in the NYT[10] about the patent application which is not enough to demonstrate notability on its own and the Popular Science article[11] is not independent as it is based on an interview with the inventor. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:37, 26 July 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Frank Anchor 16:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Smith (American football, born 1959)[edit]

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

Too short, not important enough to be here. Sportsfangnome (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, and American football. Sportsfangnome (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, played a Full Season in the National Football League ([12]) and meets GNG with SIGCOV, see for example [13] (p2). BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looking at [14] he played in 16 games and started 6. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the feature story linked above by BeanieFan, my search also turned up this. So, we have an athlete who played in the NFL for a full season of 16 games and received SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Thats a GNG pass. Cbl62 (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the nom's rational that the article is "too short" is not a reason to delete. Cbl62 (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:GNG, and WP:BASIC, per the sources found by BeanieFan11 and Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Too short? He's 6 foot 3! St Anselm (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know if this is a joke or if this is you being serious, I am an American, so I am not the smartest. Sportsfangnome (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a joke. St Anselm (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NFL players who are regulars on the roster and hit the field are usually notable, as BeanieFan11 and Cbl62 demonstrate above.--Mvqr (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid deletion rationale, and even though we eliminated the presumption that a player who played 1 NFL game is notable, this player played a full season including 6 as a starter, so he far clears any reasonable presumption of notability bar. And in any cases, the sources given in this discussion pass GNG. Rlendog (talk) 13:54, 20 July 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!} 20:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Reza Saeidi[edit]

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

his medals are not important. he doesn't pass wp:N and wp:GNG Miha2020 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage through Iranian and Persian sources; [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 17:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to me a medal at the World Sambo Championships is notable enough. Sports2021 (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage as well as achievements. St Anselm (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A medal at the sambo world championships is the exclamation point to all those articles (not all of which show what I'd call significant independent coverage). Definitely seems to be an athlete of note in his home country. Papaursa (talk) 22:42, 21 July 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!} 20:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Ejiama[edit]

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

Sounds like an early career researcher with a few publications (including co-author on a decently cited Nature paper) who founded a non-notable company. Doesn't meet WP:NPROF and seems like WP:TOOSOON. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of the easiest delete votes as my extensive searches on google, google news, google books, wikipedia library and ProQuest all got a total of two hits, and none indicated notability. CT55555 (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, none of those search locations are appropriate for gauging C1 notability of academics in most STEM fields, as they are not going to be receiving secondary coverage in traditional media nor are they going to be heavily cited in books/have books reviewed. You need to be looking at citation counts and h-index on Scopus (GS should be used with caution as it "cites" a lot of non-academic media) to gauge relative C1 impact in these cases. JoelleJay (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this tip. I know to be cautious of GS on this. But the correct way is probably the one thing I most need to learn. How exactly do I find the citation counts on Scopus? Do I need an account or something? CT55555 (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You do generally need a Scopus account (usually through university library access) to see some of the features of a scholar's profile, although the preview version does give a good overview: [20]. GS generally inflates citations ~1.5-2x (for example, Scopus gives her 301 citations while GS gives her 436), with the fold change increasing with higher numbers of papers and citations. If you keep that in mind you can use it, but of course with all citation indices interpretations must be relative to the subfield. It's also important to be familiar with author contribution norms in each field/journal, since being a "middle author" on papers doesn't count as much in disciplines with ordinal or pseudo-ordinal authorship. JoelleJay (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way way way TOOSOON. No chance someone with a master's working as a research assistant will have academic notability even if they're on every publication their lab puts out. JoelleJay (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. W C M_email 07:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability Kazanstyle (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kj cheethamThanks for your time. As discussed on your page and on mine, looks like most of the publications are co-authored and wouldn't count for WP:NPROF. I agreed with some of the statements here which are eye opener to me. I am happy for the page to be deleted. @JoelleJay great efforts on Scopus scores and GS as that shows the level of understanding some of your editors have here as regarding confirming notability. @CT55555 Google wouldn't be suitable for confirming C1 notability of academics as that is relevant to WP:GNG. Again, thanks all for the steer and also, for others; it's better to provide a justifiable reasons why you wanted a page deleted and example as @JoelleJay rather than just typing 'Delete'. Oceanview1590 (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSCHOLAR at this time. Special thanks to JoelleJay for their analysis. Jacona (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:03, 25 July 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!} 18:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Wayne Flyers[edit]

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

Too short and is not really important, we do not know if they have a division title let alone a championship. Sportsfangnome (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and American football. Sportsfangnome (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I was able to find a single mention in the Evansville Courier and Press, but besides that, nothing. So the team fails GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job! Sportsfangnome (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant media coverage. I see one unreliable source[21] that says it's a semi-pro team, which would disqualify it if true. Also, it plays in an obscure league that has no article. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:GNG. Fats40boy11 (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability; fails WP:GNG. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found the official website: http://www.fortwayneflyers.org/index.htm. Don't know if it is still running however because my school blocked the website on this computer. I also found that they might actually be a baseball team:https://waynedalenews.com/2008/07/fort-wayne-flyers-win-regional/ Sportsfangnome (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball: https://www.worldbaseballacademy.com/sites/default/files/past-results/63_2007_hc_tournament_results.pdf

Football:http://allencountyparks.org/uploads/ac_draft_2007-12-21.pdf page 77.

Which one is it in? Sportsfangnome (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is probably both a baseball and football team. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't believe this meets notability or coverage standards.
Delete not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. That it exists is not a reason to keep it. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Very little WP:SIGCOV. Frank Anchor 16:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTEAM. Cbl62 (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of reliable sources. Note: WP:NTEAM seems to have zero value at this time, it probably was gutted with most of the other sports SNGs a while back...Jacona (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as others mentioned, fails WP:GNG and WP:NTEAM. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTEAM, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:GNG and WP:NTEAM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:52, 26 July 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 procedural close as redundant. Article is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Wayne Flyers---there was no reason to also tag and create a separate discussion page for the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) --Finngall ^talk 18:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Fort Wayne Flyers[edit]

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

The article is too short and is a stub. Sportsfangnome (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and American football. Sportsfangnome (talk) 18:04, 19 July 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 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series)#Characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2003 TV series characters[edit]

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

The list is already represented at Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series). This article should be redirected or deleted. Bruxton (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Lists. Bruxton (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_(2003_TV_series)#Characters. Unsourced and short character list, no reason it needs to be a stand-alone. The list in the linked section is already longer. An argument could be made that the list in main article needs to be shortened and split off, but the problem is lack of any sourcing. Frankly, in addition to redirecting this I'd also support reducing the plot fancruft present in the main article. It's ridclous this is longer than the corresponding sections for characters found in articles on Star Wars or Casablanca or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete - No sources to show it meets GNG or LISTN. It's an unnecessary content split. The list in the main article can be reduced until it fits. We have no need to cover all characters, just ones important enough for a basic overview suitable for a general encyclopedia. TTN (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article. The TV shows decending this one have an article mentioning evrey character with detail, even the unimportant ones, while in this show, in my opinion, alomst all of the characters had a major impact on the plot at some point. Haji kiluu (talk) 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Redirect No reason in keeping 2 articles for this subject. desmay (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Re-title - Let this page stay with the title renamed to include the "2003 TV series" in the parenthesis. If the other Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles pages have their own character pages, why can't this one? Also, I had included a split the section discussion on the show's talk page which @Oknazevad: supported me on. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_(2003_TV_series)#Characters. The article lacks any refs meeting GNG, and is incomplete with only a few characters, so I am not sure of the selection criteria for LISTN. It's shorter/less detailed than the existing list, though I agree with Piotrus, it needs trimming, it's way too long and intricately detailed. VickKiang (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_(2003_TV_series)#Characters is the best solution.TH1980 (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- All of the other pages have one. Ahmad kaluu (talk) 04:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters. I don't see as how this list offers anything not already there. They can find mention of the characters listed there, and click links to the individual articles that exist for all the characters in this list article. Are these few characters different in any of the series? Leonardo leads, Donatello does machines, Raphael is cool but rude, and Michelangelo is a party dude. Note that the characters section at Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2003 TV series) is severely bloated and takes up most of the article. If that information was relevant it'd be a valid split out article with this current article's name. Dream Focus 06:41, 23 July 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 Local councils of Malta. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of towns in Malta[edit]

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

Moving to AfD to get consensus on keep/move/delete/redirect. Kazamzam (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 20:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously. The article does not have a single source, totally break Wikipedia:Verifiability. Also, 100% of article is Wikipedia:original research + even name of article is clear original research because Malta officially has no cities, towns etc, Malta is officially divided only into 68 administrative units known as "local councils". This division functions in both the law and the constitution. The article lists all areas, historical settlements, housing estates and even the modern administrative divisions and all of this are called as towns. This is absurdal hoax (Wikipedia:Hoax), to speedy delete. Also, there is correct article of List of localities in Malta about this topic, so - this article is wrong duplicate. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 21:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, there are over 140,000 articles currently tagged as unreferenced (see WikiProject Unreferenced articles) and we are not about to delete them all. Unreferenced material *can* be deleted but it is not an immediate if-then action. Kazamzam (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"unreferenced" is just one of several problems. The bigger problem is clear original research and that this article is just a wrong duplicate with the wrong name. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 17:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Local councils of Malta. The template at the bottom shows there is a list like this for every nation in Europe. Wikipedia has a list article showing that as well at Lists of cities in Europe. We also have Category:Towns in Malta. Some of the articles linked to call it a village, town, or city, so if that's a mistake it needs to be changed. This list should exist, just with the proper article name. Dream Focus 22:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a huge mess with localities in Malta, even in categories. There will be a lot of cleanup to be done. We have to get rid of those hoaxes and the original research from Wikipedia, especially since most of these changes were made by two users. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 22:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:PRESERVE and retention of plausible search terms, to either Local councils of Malta or List of localities in Malta, noting that the present text of this article derives from the independently created List of towns in Malta and Gozo, which would require an attribution statement when any redirecting is made; see my post at Talk:List of towns in Malta#Reverted prod. The early history of this article, until 25 July 2010, has a different text. Lists are not subject to the same expectation of sourcing as non-list articles; most of the burden of verifiability is borne by the blue-linked articles included. However, they are expected to satisfy notability and verifiability criteria for the items listed as a class, and we have three articles with significant overlap. Depending on what the actual governmental nomenclature is in Malta and how places are normally referred to in reliable sources in English (WP:COMMONNAME) (I see no reason whatsoever to consider this article a hoax, and note that in 2017 Subtropical-man himself restored it from redirect, apparently copying and pasting the text from List of towns in Malta and Gozo), I am uncertain whether we need even two articles. My tentative preference, since I have no expertise in the area, would be to redirect this article to Local councils of Malta and to also redirect List of localities in Malta there, on the same basis, but there is material in both that would need to be merged; and if only this article gets redirected, the title List of localities in Malta seems like a more obvious redirect target. Subtropical-man has asserted that some of that material is erroneous—housing estates and otherwise non-discrete locations—but even if there are errors, that doesn't mean everything in the article, or in List of localities in Malta, is an error. (I'd also like to note that all four of these are quite old articles: Local councils of Malta was created by Zoe in December 2002, List of localities in Malta by Tsum60, a Maltese editor, in June 2007, and the other two date back to 2008 (this article, by Seanjmarshall74) and 2010 (the one with Gozo in the title, by Kinginformation). So Subtropical-man's generalization about 2 users is an overstatement.) Yngvadottir (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If more users prefer redirect, although I prefer deletion, I agree with redirect option. Subtropical-man (✉ | en-2) 19:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 19 July 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 procedural close as wrong venue. Redirects go to WP:RFD, not AfD. (non-admin closure) --Finngall ^talk 17:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Njiru, James[edit]

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

Since there is now a Njiru disambiguation page, this redirect is superfluous and could be confusing. --Melchior2006 (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as improperly nominated. First, this is a redirect, not an article, and therefore not subject to WP:AFD at all. Second, this is a sortname redirect, which is a well-established category of redirects that are supposed to exist. Third, there is only one James Njiru in the encyclopedia, so the existence of a Njiru disambiguation page is of no consequence. BD2412 T 16:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Femke (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Labor Caucus (United States)[edit]

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

Citations are extremely lacking. Caucus lacks any real notable sources beyond its founding, and even those are minimal. Toa Nidhiki05 15:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG, as you would expect from congressional caucus of this size: [22][23][24] The nominator seems to be looking just at the references cited in the article. St Anselm (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep, needs more references, but passes GNG. Rylesbourne (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per StAnselm. Passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Caucus which holds 114 seats, the fact that this was nominated for deletion at all is ridiculous, and probably by some "anti-woke" Republican. *Face-Palm* — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyJew (talk • contribs) 06:38, 24 July 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 14:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Dowd (CEO)[edit]

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

Violates WP:Promotion and WP:Notability as the article is primarily a description of the subject's involvement in company Sundance Vacations and draws only from sources that discuss that company/involvement. DarthVetter (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Dowd purchased a new property" is this the stuff of notability? Good grief. Per nom, with fire. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and he donated to charity 10 yrs ago. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual with routine mentions in media. Certainly a good person that donated to charity 10 yrs ago, but nothing notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Kazanstyle (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:49, 26 July 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 Procedural close. Nominator changed all of the nominated articles to redirects before this AFD discussion was closed.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robertson Nunatak[edit]

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

Not notable: article consists entirely of the USGS Geographic Names Information System and no other information is available (WP Library results only show descriptions of maps showing the nunatuk) User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 13:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 13:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND. It exists, it is not notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for the few lines of text, it could be copied into the article about the glacier. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I'm unfamiliar with wiki-etiquette. I've merged the information in this article into Lambert Glacier; can I create a redirect and withdraw this deletion nomination or should I leave the article until the discussion plays out? User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 16:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all also consist of data from the same source and have no other apparent sources other than maps. Sorry for taking so long to do so. These are all part of the same (autogenerated?) set of articles regurgitating the USGS data. I'd nominate more but I'm doing all of this by hand. I would prefer to nominate most (but not all) of the pages listed under Prince Charles Mountains: User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 15:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’m usually a big fan of bundled AfDs but I’m not particularly of this one. I know that the slow and laborious work of merging these Antarctica stubs into more general articles is underway and I think it would be a shame for us to lose all this detail by being in too much of a hurry. My preference in every case is to merge and redirect where possible to articles about more notable nearby features. I recognise that in some cases this won’t be possible and we’ll lose the stubs as a result, but I think that should be a last resort. Mccapra (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, after the conversations yesterday I'm in agreement. I've started that work on the parts of the list of features of the Prince Charles Mountains that aren't on this list but I feel weird about turning all of these into redirects after nominating them. User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 13:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw After seeing the discussion, I'm withdrawing this nomination and will begin the process of merging and redirecting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonwilliamsl (talk • contribs) 14:16, 20 July 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 12:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People's Mohajerin Organization of Iran[edit]

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

Another small group that never made any notable accomplishments, registered politically, fielded a candidate, participated in any election, etc. Notability is mostly assumed from interaction with People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran. An online search doesn’t give any additional hits aside from the only source already in the article (which lacks any form of substantial coverage). Fails notability (WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, WP:ORG, take your pick). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undersourced, overblown. Not notable, per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran – Followers of Musa's Way[edit]

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

The only source available describes the subject as "a group of activists" (which never made any notable accomplishments, registered politically, fielded a candidate, participated in any election, etc.). Notability is mostly assumed from interaction with People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran. An online search doesn’t give any additional hits aside from the only source already in the article (which lacks any form of substantial coverage). Fails notability (WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, WP:ORG, take your pick). Fad Ariff (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, uncontroversial fail of WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:18, 19 July 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 12:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Investours[edit]

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

Looks like an advertisiment, non notable organization Assirian cat (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "How it works" tells me this is an ad for the company, not anything notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Over-promotional, under-notable. Fails WP:NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 01:26, 20 July 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 12:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Moore (Colorado)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO Assirian cat (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Old guy running for office that used to be in the Navy. Nothing notable, yet. Can be recreated if/when he wins. Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete -Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN WP:NPOL WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV He has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject Artedm (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN WP:NPOL WP:GNG WP:SIGCOV Artedm (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just no. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the coverage is all incidental to the election. If Moore is elected as Lieutenant governor, he will be notable, not before then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against re-creation if he wins in the general election. Presently, there doesn't appear to be enough reliably sourced significant coverage about the subject, outside of routine campaign coverage, to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TS and AP J.A.C[edit]

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

Not notable activist group Assirian cat (talk) 11:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Telangana. Shellwood (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:06, 20 July 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 11:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abadi Zavarzmand Shomareh Mowtowr 55[edit]

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

Mass-created article made in violation of WP:MASSCREATE/WP:MEATBOT based on the 2006 Iranian census, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46 for all the gory details. The Iranian census gathered data by whatever the closest named landmark was, including pumps, factories, farms, bridges, individual houses and so-forth, so this is not actually a legally-recognised community and thus fails WP:GEOLAND#1. The name simply means something like "Abadi Zavarzmand, engine number 55", so this is not a village but instead an engine somewhere within Joghatai village that census-takers have used as a reference point. Typically such engines are used to pump water and thus likely to be a more prominent local feature.
Per WP:BUNDLE, every Iranian "village" article we have including the word "Mowtowr" in the title appears to be a hoax/spam article created by the same editor (Carlossuarez46) and therefore can be nominated together. This is demonstrated particularly by:

"Mowtowr" is not a Persian-origin word, but instead a relatively-modern ~~English~~French-origin loan-word and thus highly, highly unlikely to be used as a place-name in Iran.
A review of these articles shows that they are all cited either to the Iranian census alone (which is not a list of legally-recognised populated communities) or to the Iranian Census and GEOnet Names Server (which is also not a reliable source).
There have been 17 AFD discussion regarding articles with the word "Mowtowr" in the title (see here), every one of which was created by Carlossuarez46 and closed delete/redirect.
All of these articles was written according to the same/similar template: "NAME (Persian: PERSIAN, also romanized as ALTERNATE ROMANIZATION) is a village in RURAL DISTRICT, in the DISTRICT of COUNTY, PROVINCE, Iran. At the 2006 census, its population was NUMBER, in FAMILIES."

As such bundled deletion is justified. FOARP (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Complete list of 128 other Carlossuarez46 articles about "villages" with "Mowtowr" in the name
*Mowtowr-e Alizadeh Mowtowr-e Rajab Mowtowr-e Heydar Mowtowr-e Chaker Mowtowr-e Zanjiri Mowtowr-e Behruz Mowtowr-e Khvabiar Mowtowr-e Fajr Mowtowr-e Malek Mowtowr-e Amir Mowtowr-e Baluchha Mowtowr-e Amid Mowtowr-e Kandal Mowtowr-e Mohammadabad Mowtowr-e Tareh Mowtowr-e Sarhadi Mowtowr-e Naseri Mowtowr-e Jamhuri Mowtowr-e Zabudi Mowtowr-e Davazdah Farurdin Mowtowr-e Hasan Matlaq Mowtowr-e Hoseyn Khurshidi Mowtowr-e Puzeh Soleymani Mowtowr-e Abdal Naruyi Mowtowr-e Harun Amiri Mowtowr-e Sohrabi Hur Mowtowr-e Panzdah Khordad Mowtowr-e 15 Khordad Mowtowr-e 17 Shahrivar Mowtowr-e Sarkanderi Hur Mowtowr Ab-e Soltani Mowtowr-e Lal Mohammad Mowtowr-e Qasem Mufaq Mowtowr Pamp-e Azadegan Mojtame Mowtowr-e Rayiniha Mowtowr-e Mir Shekari Mowtowr-e Garsaz Hoseynabad Mowtowr-e Saheb Khan Mowtowr-e Navab Jadgal Mowtowr-e Sohrab Qanbari Mowtowr-e Shakr Khalqpur Mowtowr Pamp-e Hoseynabad Mowtowr-e Esfandi Hur Mowtowr-e 22 Khordad Mowtowr-e Morad Soltani Mowtowr-e Aliabad Hur Mowtowr-e Dushanbeh Rushni Mowtowr-e Chah Dukahur Mowtowr Pamp-e Baharestan Mowtowr-e Mohammad Zaman Mowtowr-e Gol Zaman Mowtowr-e Pirdad Khudestan Mowtowr Pamp-e Ahmadganji Mowtowr-e Darvish Birami Mowtowr-e Mazar Fathi Mowtowr-e Rostam Zeynabadi Mowtowr-e Ali Kord Mowtowr-e 22 Bahman Mowtowr-e Hezar Buteh Hur Mowtowr-e Dusahnbeh Dust Kam Mowtowr-e Allahabad-e Soltani Mowtowr-e Hasan Khvajui Ashayiri Mowtowr-e Bagh-e Baghun Mowtowr-e Morad Bakhsh Damani Mowtowr-e Gol Mohammad Palangi Mowtowr-e Bulan Zehi Kach Mowtowr Pamp-e Abbas Nowruzpur Mowtowr-e Rasul Bakhsh Jadgal Mowtowr-e Ali Morad Khalqpur Mowtowr-e Garuh 15 Khordad Mowtowr Pamp-e Gol Sorkhi Mowtowr-e Shaban Bahman Nezhad Mowtowr-e Ashayiri Mohammad Dezhkam Mowtowr-e 287 Gastorsh Masud Abadi Zavarzmand Shomareh Mowtowr 52 Mowtowr-e Jelal va Kimas Mowtowr-e Chah Bagi Hur Mowtowr-e Dad Mohammad Rahbar Mowtowr-e Gholam Hoseyn Iran Mowtowr-e Ashayir Shirazad 1 Mowtowr Pamp-e Ebrahim Akhlaspur Mowtowr-e Allah Bakhsh Hatam Mowtowr-e Mir Huti Naruyi Mowtowr-e Gholam Hoseyn Kuhestani Mowtowr Pamp-e Naser 4 Mojtame Mowtowr-e Hay Baluchha Mowtowr-e Khorramshahr Chah Hasan Mowtowr-e Ashayiri Hasan Amiri Mowtowr-e Shir Ali Ebrahimi Mowtowr-e Rahman Khalqpur Chah Hasan Mowtowr Pamp-e Ashayiri Garuh 111 Mowtowr-e Shahid Davud Hatami Mowtowr Pamp-e Naser 3 Mowtowr-e Reza Hajjabi Chah Hasan Mowtowr-e Shomareh-ye Do Shahabad Mowtowr-e Nur Mohammad Pandar Bakhsh Mowtowr Pamp-e Khodad Bahram Nezhad Mowtowr-e Hay-e Parik Amiri Mowtowr-e Shomareh-ye Yek Shahabad Mowtowr-e Hay-e Zanjiri Hur Mowtowr-e Abbasabad-e Bala Hur Mowtowr-e Shomareh-ye Seh Shahabad Mowtowr-e Bahram Khalqpur Chah Hasan Mowtowr-e Hay-e Eslamabad Hur Mowtowr-e Abbas Chatarpima Chah Hasan Mowtowr-e Zargareha Shomareh-ye Do Mowtowr Pamp-e Shah Gaz Karimabad Mowtowr-e Ashayiri-ye Yek Aliabad Mowtowr-e Ramazan Hasht va Gani Mowtowr-e Hay-e Soleymanabad Hur Mowtowr-e Hay-e Sardag Sargrij Mowtowr Pamp-e Ashayiri Pur Amiri Mowtowr-e Vali Hasht va Gani Mowtowr-e Zargareha Shomareh-ye Yek Mowtowr-e Ashayir Mohammad Safineh Taj Mowtowr-e Masha-ye Yek Rahinabad Mowtowr-e Ramazan Tajik Gav Chah Mowtowr-e Hay-e Hoseynabad Hur Mowtowr-e Hay-e Khoskh Owri Hur Mowtowr-e Khoda Morad Khalqpur Chah Hasan Mowtowr Pamp-e Mohammad Reza Pir Moradi Mojtame-ye Mowtowr-e Hay Tigh Ab Mowtowr Pamp-e Ali Morad Bahram Nezhad Mowtowr-e Nur Mohammad Qanbari Chah Hasan Mowtowr-e Hay-e Shahidabad Shur Sargrij Mowtowr Pamp-e Naser Soltani Sherket 270 Mowtowr-e Hay-e Hur-e Olya Mowtowr-e Morad Hasht va Gani Chah Hasan

Complete list of 128 other Carlossuarez46 articles about "villages" with "Mowtowr" in the name

*Mowtowr-e Alizadeh

Mowtowr-e Rajab
Mowtowr-e Heydar
Mowtowr-e Chaker
Mowtowr-e Zanjiri
Mowtowr-e Behruz
Mowtowr-e Khvabiar
Mowtowr-e Fajr
Mowtowr-e Malek
Mowtowr-e Amir
Mowtowr-e Baluchha
Mowtowr-e Amid
Mowtowr-e Kandal
Mowtowr-e Mohammadabad
Mowtowr-e Tareh
Mowtowr-e Sarhadi
Mowtowr-e Naseri
Mowtowr-e Jamhuri
Mowtowr-e Zabudi
Mowtowr-e Davazdah Farurdin
Mowtowr-e Hasan Matlaq
Mowtowr-e Hoseyn Khurshidi
Mowtowr-e Puzeh Soleymani
Mowtowr-e Abdal Naruyi
Mowtowr-e Harun Amiri
Mowtowr-e Sohrabi Hur
Mowtowr-e Panzdah Khordad
Mowtowr-e 15 Khordad
Mowtowr-e 17 Shahrivar
Mowtowr-e Sarkanderi Hur
Mowtowr Ab-e Soltani
Mowtowr-e Lal Mohammad
Mowtowr-e Qasem Mufaq
Mowtowr Pamp-e Azadegan
Mojtame Mowtowr-e Rayiniha
Mowtowr-e Mir Shekari
Mowtowr-e Garsaz Hoseynabad
Mowtowr-e Saheb Khan
Mowtowr-e Navab Jadgal
Mowtowr-e Sohrab Qanbari
Mowtowr-e Shakr Khalqpur
Mowtowr Pamp-e Hoseynabad
Mowtowr-e Esfandi Hur
Mowtowr-e 22 Khordad
Mowtowr-e Morad Soltani
Mowtowr-e Aliabad Hur
Mowtowr-e Dushanbeh Rushni
Mowtowr-e Chah Dukahur
Mowtowr Pamp-e Baharestan
Mowtowr-e Mohammad Zaman
Mowtowr-e Gol Zaman
Mowtowr-e Pirdad Khudestan
Mowtowr Pamp-e Ahmadganji
Mowtowr-e Darvish Birami
Mowtowr-e Mazar Fathi
Mowtowr-e Rostam Zeynabadi
Mowtowr-e Ali Kord
Mowtowr-e 22 Bahman
Mowtowr-e Hezar Buteh Hur
Mowtowr-e Dusahnbeh Dust Kam
Mowtowr-e Allahabad-e Soltani
Mowtowr-e Hasan Khvajui Ashayiri
Mowtowr-e Bagh-e Baghun
Mowtowr-e Morad Bakhsh Damani
Mowtowr-e Gol Mohammad Palangi
Mowtowr-e Bulan Zehi Kach
Mowtowr Pamp-e Abbas Nowruzpur
Mowtowr-e Rasul Bakhsh Jadgal
Mowtowr-e Ali Morad Khalqpur
Mowtowr-e Garuh 15 Khordad
Mowtowr Pamp-e Gol Sorkhi
Mowtowr-e Shaban Bahman Nezhad
Mowtowr-e Ashayiri Mohammad Dezhkam
Mowtowr-e 287 Gastorsh Masud
Abadi Zavarzmand Shomareh Mowtowr 52
Mowtowr-e Jelal va Kimas
Mowtowr-e Chah Bagi Hur
Mowtowr-e Dad Mohammad Rahbar
Mowtowr-e Gholam Hoseyn Iran
Mowtowr-e Ashayir Shirazad 1
Mowtowr Pamp-e Ebrahim Akhlaspur
Mowtowr-e Allah Bakhsh Hatam
Mowtowr-e Mir Huti Naruyi
Mowtowr-e Gholam Hoseyn Kuhestani
Mowtowr Pamp-e Naser 4
Mojtame Mowtowr-e Hay Baluchha
Mowtowr-e Khorramshahr Chah Hasan
Mowtowr-e Ashayiri Hasan Amiri
Mowtowr-e Shir Ali Ebrahimi
Mowtowr-e Rahman Khalqpur Chah Hasan
Mowtowr Pamp-e Ashayiri Garuh 111
Mowtowr-e Shahid Davud Hatami
Mowtowr Pamp-e Naser 3
Mowtowr-e Reza Hajjabi Chah Hasan
Mowtowr-e Shomareh-ye Do Shahabad
Mowtowr-e Nur Mohammad Pandar Bakhsh
Mowtowr Pamp-e Khodad Bahram Nezhad
Mowtowr-e Hay-e Parik Amiri
Mowtowr-e Shomareh-ye Yek Shahabad
Mowtowr-e Hay-e Zanjiri Hur
Mowtowr-e Abbasabad-e Bala Hur
Mowtowr-e Shomareh-ye Seh Shahabad
Mowtowr-e Bahram Khalqpur Chah Hasan
Mowtowr-e Hay-e Eslamabad Hur
Mowtowr-e Abbas Chatarpima Chah Hasan
Mowtowr-e Zargareha Shomareh-ye Do
Mowtowr Pamp-e Shah Gaz Karimabad
Mowtowr-e Ashayiri-ye Yek Aliabad
Mowtowr-e Ramazan Hasht va Gani
Mowtowr-e Hay-e Soleymanabad Hur
Mowtowr-e Hay-e Sardag Sargrij
Mowtowr Pamp-e Ashayiri Pur Amiri
Mowtowr-e Vali Hasht va Gani
Mowtowr-e Zargareha Shomareh-ye Yek
Mowtowr-e Ashayir Mohammad Safineh Taj
Mowtowr-e Masha-ye Yek Rahinabad
Mowtowr-e Ramazan Tajik Gav Chah
Mowtowr-e Hay-e Hoseynabad Hur
Mowtowr-e Hay-e Khoskh Owri Hur
Mowtowr-e Khoda Morad Khalqpur Chah Hasan
Mowtowr Pamp-e Mohammad Reza Pir Moradi
Mojtame-ye Mowtowr-e Hay Tigh Ab
Mowtowr Pamp-e Ali Morad Bahram Nezhad
Mowtowr-e Nur Mohammad Qanbari Chah Hasan
Mowtowr-e Hay-e Shahidabad Shur Sargrij
Mowtowr Pamp-e Naser Soltani Sherket 270
Mowtowr-e Hay-e Hur-e Olya
Mowtowr-e Morad Hasht va Gani Chah Hasan

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. FOARP (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have come across Carlossuarez46's creations in the past and heard about the Iran cases before. I support deletion per the rationale given by the nominator - census data doesn't confer notability here. Toadspike (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. With particular emphasis on that theses is no basis or verifiability shown that these are established villages. Also the one "reference" given is just some type of attempted wiki template which goes nowhere. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reference doesn't go nowhere, it's an Excel file on the website of the Statistical Center of Iran, which probably downloads or opens in Office. Peter James (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Peter James, I think it might be helpful if you read the following discussion where some native Farsi speakers explained to the creator of these articles why being listed as an abadi on this excel spread-sheet is not proof that the location is actual a community: User_talk:Carlossuarez46/Archive_13#Places_in_Iran. I am not a Farsi speaker of any description but I find their explanation compelling. FOARP (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All reminds me of the Augean John Carter cleanup of some 150 cruft/faux UAE place name pages I did a few years back - very similar MO here, too. I must note this AfD is considerably more elegant than my efforts back then, but I do feel the frustration at these idiotic articles - and the damage that they do when apps & websites go geo-scraping WP and end up creating whole communities online that don't exist in the real world. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. This single editor has wasted so much of everyone’s time! Mccapra (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. These articles were negligently mass-created with no attempt to verify what the places actually were, and FOARP's explanation shows that these "engine-pumps" were certainly not villages. –dlthewave ☎ 22:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Indiscriminate non notable cruft. Likely not even real places. OrgoneBox (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - AFAICT, all of these articles fail both WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND#1 — hike395 (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least some of them are real places, for example there is one at 36°41′53″N 57°06′58″E / 36.698°N 57.116°E / 36.698; 57.116. The "Mowtowr" names are probably similar to the Chak (village) names in Pakistan. Abadi Zavarzmand Shomareh Mowtowr 55 is one of 18 places in Joghatai Rural District for which the census has any information, not too many to mention in a list. Peter James (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter James - Just to be very, very clear here, "mowtowr" (موتور) is a Farsi loan-word taken from the French word "moteur" meaning "motor" or "engine". It does not mean "village". The full Google Translate version of the name of Abadi Zavarzmand Shomareh Mowtowr 55 in Farsi (ابادي زورزمندشماره موتور55) is "Ibadi Zorzmand, motor number 55". The "real place" listings are likely citogenesis and show why these articles are dangerous.

There is no reliable source for these being real, actual communities rather than simply the names of motor-pumps around which the census has been counted. The Iranian census does not distinguish between actual rural communities and simple locations in the countryside around which the census is counted - all are classified as abadi. There is thus no real reason to create a list - the US equivalent would be listing census-tracts within a community. FOARP (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are streets with buildings, probably a village, at that location. The Chak names are similar, the original meaning was not village. The US equivalent of abadi would be census-designated place. Peter James (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The US equivalent (I.e., lowest-level census-taking unit) is a Census tract. We have clear input (with links to supporting documentation) from the FA-speaking community that abadis aren’t the equivalent of villages - see the above-linked discussions where the creation of these pages was roundly condemned. Given that many of the subcontinental geostubs were created algorithmically by Mr Blofeld based on unreliable GNS data I am sceptical that Pakistani Chaks are anyway a useful example, even ignoring WP:OTHERSTUFF. FOARP (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether there is a lower level or not is not relevant, most of them are names of places (often villages), census tracts are all "Census Tract 14.02" or similar. The main differences between these and census-designated places are that many places too small for CDPs are included, about which not much has been written, and that some farms and factories are included (although some farm names are villages, and it's possible that some factory names are as they can be in the UK). If census recognition does not satisfy the "legal recognition" of WP:GEOLAND, places can still be included in a list in the district's article. I agree GNS is unreliable for some purposes (some country houses designated as "populated place" instead of "building", and occasional coordinate errors) but these are not based on GNS. Peter James (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter James, which ones in the list do you believe to be villages? –dlthewave ☎ 22:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I was just looking at the first one, but there are other villages (or at least populated places, if "village" is an official status). Mowtowr-e Baluchha (https://www.geonames.org/6986691) looks like a village at that location (should there be an AFD template on that page as it is included in the nomination?), but Mowtowr-e 22 Bahman (https://www.geonames.org/6985457), although it has more people there, it is in Geonames as a farm and does not look like a village. But if included in a list (or even as articles) they could just be described as what the census says they are, we don't have to decide if they are villages or not. Peter James (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To pass WP:Geoland#1 these should be legally recognised populated places. No source describes them as such. Looking at satellite images and describing them as “maybe villages” is WP:OR. Creating a list of rural locations around which the census has been counted simply because they have names in a database rather than numbers is pointless - 23% of Abadi according to Encyclopaedia Iranica do not even have any recorded people counted near them, and many others are palpably not “villages” but "teahouses, mines, railroad stations, and other clearly demarcated installations" so we cannot just use WP:OR to determine which are and are not “villages”. In this case they have names that clearly identify them as not villages. I’ve templated every one I could but since I don’t have AWB it’s possible that some templates were missing - I’ll go and template that one. Geonames is a Wiki-like database and of course not a reliable source anyway. FOARP (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Peter James - Both Abadi Zavarzmand Shomareh Mowtowr 55 and Abadi Zavarzmand Shomareh Mowtowr 52 are both recorded as being at approximately 36.7, 57.1 on OpenStreetMap (which is of course an unreliable, Wiki-like source). Whilst the individual pins are separated by a few hundred metres, the satellite view shows what appears to be a single continuous set of buildings. Which is the "village" and which isn't? Is pump 52 the "village"? Or is it pump 55? Or - as seems much more likely based simply on the names - are they both actually motor-pumps within a real location (possibly a village? but no reliable source says so) called "Zavarzmand"? And how, other than engaging in original research, is any conclusion at all to be reached on that? FOARP (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OSM and Bing show two villages (Google satellite view shows separate groups of streets and buildings about a mile apart, with a few buildings in the gap), pumps 55 and 56, and 52 next to 56 (which is not in the census) but not at the location of a village, so I don't know if 52 or 56 is the other village. There are others but they have different names. Peter James (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is not clear, which, if any, of these is any kind of actual community, and which not, rather militates against the idea that - even if the interpretation of satellite photos (which is ultimately original research) based on unreliable wiki-like sources to say that these are individual villages is correct - that there is any village by the name "Abadi Zavarzmand Shomareh Mowtowr 55". I note that there is also Chah-e Amiq Shomareh-ye 27 Zuzmand, Chah-e Amiq Shomareh-ye 28 Zurzamand, Chah-e Amiq Shomareh-ye 5 Zurzamand, Chah-e Amiq Shomareh-ye Do Zurzamand, Chah-e Amiq Shomareh-ye Yek Zurzamand, all of which are numbered wells, and all of which appear to be locations within a community called "Zavarzmand" (for which "Zuzmand"/"Zurzamand" are just different romanisations?). FOARP (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - Indiscriminate mess.PrisonerB (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If any of them should exist, they can be recreated manually. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate database of unreliable WP:TRIVIA, which is what these amount to.Jacona (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:MASSCREATE violations, with no impediment to individual recreation if editors can find reliable and significant coverage on them. BilledMammal (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as failures of NOTDATABASE and GEOLAND. Avilich (talk) 17:49, 23 July 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 11:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paraiso Ko'y Ikaw (2022 TV series)[edit]

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

No evidence found of any notability, all GNews sources are about the 2014 series. Fram (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Philippines. Fram (talk) 10:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete confirming OP's findings on getting the 2014 TV series hits instead. By the way, the article's creator has been indef blocked due to disruptive edits, we may be looking at a hoax article here. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:G3 as clearly WP:HOAX with no evident sources found. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as WP:G3/WP:HOAX. SBKSPP (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faerschthaff[edit]

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

Absolutely no notability whatsoever attached to this self-proclaimed "small Farmstead and Hamlet" created by a now-blocked user. Fails WP:GNG;WP:GEOLAND with considerable brio. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Luxembourg. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. BilletsMauves (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be literally a farm found on a map. CMD (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 00:31, 20 July 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. Happy to restore the article for the purpose of merging content, if desired. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 19:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Santiago Porteiro[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NMOTORSPORT. He competed in Formula 1 feeder series but didn't make it to International Formula 3000 (which was the GP2 Series' predecessor at the time for NMOTORSPORT Criteria 2). I wasn't able to find anything in my searches besides database entries, passing mentions in the race recaps, and a single mention in one dubious source about opening a new team for Spanish F4 2017 (which didn't even happen). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Motorsport, and Spain. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Alright alright alright... let me set this straight because I think you're getting a lot of stuff mixed up. First of all, Criteria 2 of WP:NMOTORSPORT should not and does not mean exclusively F3000/GP2/F2. These are just the main series the FIA favours as F1's primary feeder series, which doesn't mean there weren't more. Wikipedia is not the FIA's sock puppet so there is no reason to ignore the likes of the Trophées de France, the always-confused British F1, British Formula 3000, Auto GP, MSV F2 or most importantly Formula Renault 3.5. These were all "top-level feeder series" by definition, while not necessarily equally notable. Now, FR3.5 was essentially as important as GP2 in this era, in fact taking more drivers directly to F1, and it is where Santi Porteiro (that's his WP:COMMONNAME and the name with which you'll find more coverage of him) raced in. Or rather, in its predecessor, the World Series by Nissan—only difference with the former being the promoter, Jaime Alguersuari Sr.'s RPM Racing. I don't think this makes him notable, especially as his results were poor, but it's not as if he didn't make it to an important championship... The thing with Santi is his article isn't updated. He's not just a (former) racing driver, he's currently a decently-respected driver coach and manager, as well as the founder of Porteiro Motorsport (together with his more successful brother Félix Porteiro). The team has raced in the European F3 Open (present-day Euroformula) and its parent series International GT Open, and were indeed planning an expansion to F4 but backed out of it. However, what they're most known for is their collection of cars for use in private or public test days. They own cars from GT3, GT4 (primarily Mercedes), GP2 (both /08 and /11 I believe), GP3, 3.5, Regional, F4 and even World Series Lights (funnily enough, the series Santi won)... and they're quite busy testing them all year long. They've got deals going on with various F2/F3 teams (e.g. Campos and Charouz) and most of their drivers (Bolukbasi, Caldwell, Pizzi, Martí this year) prepare their seasons testing for Porteiro. So... to summarise: this is Santi's business now, it's pretty big and it's what he and Félix are known for in the industry. He is not a random, retired racing driver that has seemingly disappeared off the face of the earth. What establishes whether he warrants an article though is WP:SIGCOV, and I've been able to find these: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. It's not a lot of coverage, so I'm not voting keep just yet, but it's also not the clear-cut delete !vote that it appeared based on your description. A deeper WP:BEFORE search which I don't have time for at the moment could shed some more light on this. MSport1005 (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MSport1005 First of all, thank you for bothering to have a really extensive backstory research, it's really appreciated. It seems like you have a lot of general knowledge beyond just the straightforward facts about feeder series. I think we might need a talk page discussion about that NMOTORSPORT criteria 2, as in whether some (or all) of those championships should be applied, but as of now, I have no other way but to apply it as it stands and written. It'd be too ambiguous to take upon anything else before any consensus. About the sources, I found exactly the same things as you did in sources 1-3 and 6, which are passing mentions or recaps (something I've mentioned in the nomination). Haven't seen the airport thing (have in mind 4 and 5 are identically the same, just in different sites, so you should remove one of them), but ultimately the coverage is also not as deep as it might look at the first glance and is not directed to Porteiro himself. Seems like it might be worthy to create an article about Porteiro Motorsport with some deeper research, but I can't find anything that'd point me to say Santiago on his own is notable. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair interpretation, with the caveat that #1 is a recap but focuses more on the driver than the series, so while it's not extense, it's also not WP:ROUTINE. #4/#5 are indeed just one event covered by different outlets. I'd agree that, as it stands, the coverage isn't quite enough for GNG—in which case, merging Santi's page to Félix Porteiro or to a potential article on Porteiro Motorsport (which I support) could be a good idea. After all, all it is (in its current state) is a poor, outdated stub with nothing more than a lead and a couple of links. MSport1005 (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG as it stands (the two being much the same these days), can't see anything above that changes that, TBH. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with only one source that is not the subject's website, we cannot technically meet GNG period because it requires multiple indepdent sources. However it does not look like the one source that is indepdent of the subject is of a qwuality to meet GNG either, so we need to delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, we do not create articles to say X person plays for Y team in Z sport and say nothing else. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how notability works. You just described what a stub is. MSport1005 (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A) This is such a stub, elegantly - if sparsely - described B) It fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. The subject is not notable per today's guidelines. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jitendra Kumar Social Activist[edit]

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

Typical "well-sourced" puff piece filled with "journalism" provided by the subject or his company. Sources in the article include Global Kashmir.net (which have the honesty to label the text an advertisement), and the exact same text from e.g. Times of Malwa or Bollywoodmascot or Voice of Hindu. Other sources like APN News are equally unreliable. Fram (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Fram (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir,

We have removed the all uncertained news sources. Please check and Update the article. Vrishti17 (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering sources like this and this, I see very little progress. Something like this, claiming "The Xpert Times and Times of UP are the world’s leading media associations for lifestyle news, government issues, business, entertainment and more." is a bit hard to take serious as a real journalistic source and not some thinly disguised PR text. Fram (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COI/UPE here. No notability. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of notability Kazanstyle (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: for what it's worth, I've just blocked the creator of this article as a sock. The page could almost certainly be deleted under G5, but as there's an active AfD I'll leave it up. firefly ( t · c ) 12:01, 24 July 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. Despite all the walls of text from the nominator, there is clearly consensus to keep this article (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1887 World Championship (football)[edit]

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

Reason In Vitrio (talk) 08:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC) 1. There is no evidence that anyone considered this anything other than a friendly match. The article cites Scottish newspapers not mentioning it as anything grander; I have read the Mail for that day and it does not mention a world championship, indeed, in the list of fixtures for the day, the top fixture is West Brom v Walsall Swifts in the Staffs Cup. An advert on the front page calls it a "great international match" and that is mere puff - the same advert includes fixtures with Notts Co and Dumbarton.[reply]

2. The adverts for the game are given equal prominence in the Birmingham media to matches such as Aston Unity v Excelsior and a follow-up match between Villa and Dumbarton.

3. The match preview in the Birmingham Mail describes Villa as playing three important matches - Hibs, Notts County, and Dumbarton, suggesting each was considered as important as the other; there is no hint at this being a 'world' championship. They are together considered the Easter programme and again given no more prominence than those of other clubs (6 April 1887, p. 4). (On the same page there is a merit table for the leading clubs in the country - the club at the top of that is Preston North End and the top Scots club is the Vale of Leven.)

4. The match report in the Birmingham Mail gives it less prominence than the Shropshire Junior Cup, which is standard for the time, when friendlies were always subordinate to competitive matches.

5. There is no suggestion of any prize, of any celebration, or of any claim to being even de facto world champions.

6. I cannot find any published source anywhere that declares this to have been a world championship (unlike the 1888 match between Renton and West Bromwich Albion).

The article is re-writing history to find something which does not exist. We cannot apply today's standards to the standards back then; after all, Queen's Park (Scottish Cup winners throughout the 1870s) regularly met the Wanderers (FA Cup winners throughout the 1870s) in friendlies but again nobody called those world championship matches.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, England, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

One other thought: the match was 1 week after the FA Cup final, so was arranged long before that match (as a return match after a friendly in January in Edinburgh). It was not organized AS a world title match. In Vitrio (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked up the billing that you mention in point #2, which is available in HD within Wikipedia here [31], it is clear that the match had a higher billing than other matches that week: it is given twice the lines, and it states GREAT INTERNATIONAL MATCH and notes the fact that both sides are their current national cup holders. The other matches just have times/prices. So you can scratch that point, it was clearly noted as an 'international match' and this misrepresentation makes me wonder if you have some kind of agenda frankly. Again, no one is claiming that Aston Villa were the best side in the world in 1887 (though due to the size of the sport in those days they potentially were), it's just a loose title that was given to games of this ilk between English ans Scottish sides. The press did call them Champions of the United Kingdom after the match on at least one occasion which is an alternate title of the Football World Championship page.

Please bring this to the talk page next time before jumping straight to deletion. Mountaincirque^talk 15:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a newspaper article - that's an advert. It's not an independent description and even with the sales puff from Villa placing it they do not call it a world championship match. Instead it is part one of their Easter programme. "Great international match" is not a first-time term for a club match - Blackburn Rovers v Queen's Park in 1882 was called the same (Blackburn Weekly Standard, 11 November 1882).

The agenda here is someone back in 2014 trying to create a fake history for a world title that never existed; the creator's only entries all relate to this mythical title (and some Venezuelan tournament which is also of dubious notoriety). Why are you so insistent that it should stay when literally nobody at the time called it the 1887 World Championship - not even the participants - and apparently nobody in the entire history of humankind called it that until this very page was put up? Isn't that the definition of "original research"? Is the truth not important?

And as I said below the "Champions of the United Kingdom" is from BEFORE the match - it refers to the FA Cup win.

If nobody can find a contemporary source, then we have to concede that the page's existence is down to someone making it up in 2014, in which case it has to be deleted. Because:

-it cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources,

-thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify it have failed (nobody commenting so far has found a reliable source), and

-as it is basically a friendly match it does not meet the relevant notability guideline. In Vitrio (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Still being written about more than 100 years later and was the precursor of further inter league matches.[32][33] The victory caused media to describe Aston Villa as champions of the UK following this match, as stated in this book.--Mvqr (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources mentions this as a world championship match. Again they all back up the Renton v WBA match as the first touted as such.

There is not one contemporary source that I have found that talks about it being a world championship match. Describing it as such 100 years later is ahistorical. In Vitrio (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to this book, this led media to dub Aston Villa as "champion team of the United Kingdom" which is significant enough. And they're still writing about this over a hundred years later. The name of the 1887 match may have been inaccurate, but that's the name they choose. The Yankees in baseball still play the World Series every year, even though they don't invite Nippon Professional Baseball teams or other teams from the world.--Mvqr (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that book is inaccurate. The one source for "champion team of the United Kingdom" is from the Birmingham Post on 4 April 1887 - i.e. BEFORE this match - and refers to Villa winning the FA Cup ("the title which they earned on Saturday"), which was open to the entire UK. And that was not unprecedented - the Blackburn Weekly Post called Rovers that in 1884.

Quite startling, in fact, looking back at the original sources, how poor some of these history books really are... In Vitrio (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever it was, it is still being covered over 100 years later. All your arguments so far might, ignoring the original research issue, support a rename or modification of some of the text of the article. However, these aren't arguments for notability. For notability, the existence of multiple, independent, reliable sources generated over a period spanning more than a hundred years prove notability.--Mvqr (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not being "covered" over 100 years later; there is 1 source mentioning this as a world championship, and it post-dates this article.

The argument for notoriety requires multiple, independent, reliable sources over a 100 year period. None of them is reliable; I would submit independence is questionable, given that there is no source until after this article appears on wikipedia; and so far nobody has actually shown more than one source that says "this was a world championship match", which dates from 2021, and the other references to it as such are misreported.

Re-name it perhaps to "Friendly Match between Aston Villa and Hibernian from 1887", which would be accurate, and let's see if it is notable. No more so than the Preston v Hibs match the next season which WAS dubbed a world championship match. In Vitrio (talk) 13:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water, the page has references, let's simply adjust the text to represent the points you make well above? The game is referenced in a number of modern sources, so deleting based on your research seems very heavy-handed to me. Examples from a quick Google Books search: [34], [35] Mountaincirque^talk 11:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that first source is inaccurate; this match was NOT arranged between the FA Cup and Scottish Cup winners, but by two clubs who later happened to win the FA Cup and the Scottish Cup. The second is obvious extrapolation.

Again, no original source refers to it as a world championship; it was a friendly between two prominent sides. It is fake history to declare it a world championship 130 years later. May as well declare the original FA Cup to have been the World Cup while we are at it. In Vitrio (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Having read through the page at Football World Championship, it is clear to me that this page should stand. The lead of that article makes it clear that these matches were between the leading sides of Scotland and England and that the title of the games did vary from year to year. This page discusses the game between the English Cup winners and the Scottish Cup winners of 1887 and as such it forms part of an ongoing series of invitational matches betweens the FAs that occurred over a 28-year period. By all means explain the fact that it is referred to as a 'great international match', that it was invitational etc. No-one really thinks that this is a competitive honour, it is not listed as such in any pages here or sources. However, it does form part of a series of games and has secondary sources and contemporaneous sources that raise its standing above other games of the time. Mountaincirque^talk 11:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that page is dubious as well, it needs proper sorting because none of the matches before 1887 had any title other than anything informal dubbed by the media. If you went back to 1878 and told the Wanderers and Vale of Leven that they were playing for the world title they would have considered you bonkers.

And that page cites no source for this match being called a de facto world championship. I get the impression that this page is directly misleading authors today into calling this a world championship. Their fault, of course, but I see no reason for perpetuating a falsehood. In Vitrio (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fair title based on common usage across the whole series of matches in my opinion. I could see an argument to rename this page Aston Villa F.C. 3-0 Hibernian F.C which is the standard format for individual matches as per Manchester United F.C. 8–2 Arsenal F.C.. Then maybe you could calm down about the name. If you want to do that then please propose it in the talk page first to try for a consensus. There are way too many sources for this page to delete. Mountaincirque^talk 15:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, I could come up with a dozen sources for many matches in that era...does that make them notable? Every FA Cup semi for starters. In context it was seen as less notable than the Shropshire Senior Cup final... In Vitrio (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources located above. Giant Snowman 18:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a number of publish book sources that talk about this match, it's an early match of across border football which was rather rare in the day. Yes it could do with a bit of work on the article, but the essence is there. Seems to just pass the basic bar for GNG in my opinion as an article and I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few more book sources to add. Govvy (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. "There are a number of publish book sources that talk about this match": name them.

2. "it's an early match of across border football which was rather rare in the day": it wasn't. For starters the FA Cup was open to Scots clubs until the Scottish FA put their foot down in the mid-1880s. I was researching something else, and, in the same week in January 1881, Dumbarton played Blackburn Rovers, Darwen, and Sheffield; Heart of Midlothian played Blackburn Rovers and Aston Villa; and Old Etonians played Queen's Park, Vale of Leven, and Edinburgh University (source: Leeds Mercury, 7 Jan 1881). Nobody was thinking of cross-border matches as anything other than matches between clubs, not as representative of associations. That's just one random week a few years before. Indeed the whole point of the reference to "champions of the United Kingdom" refers to the FA Cup being open to Welsh and Irish clubs (and Scots clubs, if they were willing to risk SFA sanction). In Vitrio (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the fact that the local press in Birmingham noted this as a GREAT INTERNATIONAL MATCH and noted the fact that they were both cup-winners, whereas all the other games you list were just your run-of-the-mill friendlies between sides that had no claim to be the leading sides of their nations.

As I suggested in another reply you can propose a rename of the page to simply the name/score of the game if you want to which would be less controversial than being so deletionist here when, as a number of senior editors have pointed out to you, there is enough here for GNG, even though it is not perfect. You seem to have a conspiracy theory in mind, all World Championship is in this context is a common-use title for these matches between cup and league-winners, so even on that basis alone, regardless of naming, it would be included as it is undoubtable that they were their respective cup-holders when they met. Mountaincirque^talk 12:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The local press did NOT note it as a Great International Match; that was an advert. Nobody in the media called it that (unlike Blackburn-Queen's Park earlier). This match is not notable in context. It was slightly freakish that both clubs won their national cups after the friendly was arranged, but there were at least a dozen other such matches earlier, and none of them has a wikipedia page.

There is no point in renaming the page because that would simply prove what I am saying, it is not notable enough. It is a one-off friendly. None of the senior editors commenting here have come up with a valid argument for keeping it here; I have shown that the arguments about its notoriety are plainly wrong or based on mis-reported sources. It is likely that at least one recent book suggests the page's existence is misleading people now.

And one other point is that this may have been a match between the professional Cup winners, but the best side in the world in 1887 was almost certainly neither of them, but the Corinthian club, which at the time did not take part in competitive matches. If you want a notable match with a much better claim for being the world championship of 1887, then the Queen's Park v Corinthian New Year's Day match was held before 100,000 (sic) at Hampden Park, and resulted in a Corinthian win. Which shows the problem in attaching an anachronistic title to - I repeat - a one-off friendly.

The simple point is NO SOURCE CALLS THIS A WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP MATCH so it should not be called that; and if you take the title away all one is left with is a friendly.

I am not being deleitionist. I am being accurate. The page is misleading and I wonder why some want to keep it. In Vitrio (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be getting a bit shouty which isn't really helping, there have been a few good pieces of advice and sources posted above that you could use to improve this page but you seem set on DELETE even though it's clear that this page is going no-where, other than being improved by our joint efforts.

I agree that there are no contemporary sources that call this specifically a World Championship. However, what there are sources for are the fact that games between the cup/league winners of Scotland/England were called World Championship games in the Victorian era, this was just one of that series games - and they were all exhibition/friendly matches. It's possible that there is some 'back contamination' of recent sources but that needs to be properly unravelled. Mountaincirque^talk 10:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it's not suitable as an article; none of these games was set up as "Cup winners v Cup winners". Wanderers v Queen's Park was a regular fixture regardless of how they did in the cups (albeit Wanderers often cried off because QP kept beating them). Corinthian v QP similarly.

So wikipedia should not be picking on one random game and elevating it into something that it was not. In period this was not as crucial a match as, say, an FA Cup semi. Also by this time Scots clubs were struggling against English because the Scots were still anti-professional (hence SFA banning them from playing against pros in the FA Cup).

Otherwise the logic is to bring out all of the other matches as well and that becomes ridiculous. It seems a solution in search of a problem. "We have all these sources." A majority of Cup matches have more sources. To pick one from the same season at random, Liverpool Stanley v Halliwell has different reports in the Liverpool Mercury, Liverpool Daily Post, and Athletic & Football Field, the Sheffield Independent and the Birmingham Post. Same day incidentally as Preston 26-0 Hyde - which does NOT have a page... In Vitrio (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator below.. Giant Snowman 12:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Clifford[edit]

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

Debatable as to whether Simon Clifford is notable (personally I don’t think he is). Wording in the article seems exaggerated at points. Manager of Garforth Town at two different stages but don’t think this is notable enough to warrant his own article. Two noted athletes graduated from his system, but if everyone was to get an article based on a couple of people graduating from their system, then there would be tons of articles. I can see an argument from people who argue that he is notable however. A merger with relevant articles could also be possible, but don’t think Clifford is notable enough for his own standalone article, which also has other problems. However, a discussion on whether it should be deleted or another option be taken is the best way to go. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's enough coverage out there; beyond what's in the article I've found this and this. Plenty others on Google News. Giant Snowman 18:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's any amount of independent SIGCOV of the subject from 1996 ongoing. The Daily Telegraph, May 1996, focused on Juninho, but about Brazilian soccer skills in the primary school where Clifford was teaching; also the Telegraph, Oct 1997, article by Clifford about his approach to learning soccer skills; The Guardian, Jan 1998, about a BBC NW documentary about Clifford's trip to Brazil and what came of it; When Saturday Comes, Dec 2004; also Guardian, Nov 2005, titled "Why Woodward's coach had to leave Southampton"; The Times, Mar 2006, lengthy piece that includes the sentence "It is scarcely any wonder that the BBC is making a six-part fly-on-the-wall documentary about Clifford."; i News, June 2020 (already in article); and, as mentioned above, plenty more recent stuff on Google News. As well as he founded Brazilian Soccer Schools which, according to the hype for a one-hour interview on BBC Radio Leeds in 2011, had more than 2 million children worldwide enrolled. It'd be good if anyone had time and interest enough to rewrite the article in a less advertorial manner. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman @Struway2 It seems like there is a lot more sources than I originally found, so thank you both for sharing and finding these sources. With all of this, there is no doubt that he is notable, especially in the 2000s and 2010s. Again, thank you both for sharing. Fats40boy11 (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you wish to withdraw the AFD? If so I can close it for you. Giant Snowman 11:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman Yes, I would like to withdraw the AFD. Thanks for sharing some independent sources. Fats40boy11 (talk) 11:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Surjeet Singh Chadda[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 07:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. Hitro talk 07:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: defeated candidate. Fails WP:NPOL. No other work. Venkat TL (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass N:POL as an unsuccessful candidate. Mccapra (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 00:33, 20 July 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 11:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of e.tv original programming[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. A BEFORE search showed me viewing options but little independent coverage about the topic. I choose not to draftify this because WP:AFC isn't our dumping-ground. This could be better developed in the e.tv article per WP:SPINOUT and redirects are costly. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and South Africa. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - List is clearly bounded and defined, network is notable, and many individual series are notable. Not every item on a list needs to have a blue link, and there are systemic bias concerns with the amount of coverage the average South African TV series receives. matt91486 (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 06:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 19 July 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. ✗plicit 11:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract State Machine Language[edit]

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

This is a stub that is not maintained. I do believe the topic deserves some mention -- see Google scholar, but probably not as its own article. Some candidates for mentioning the content would be .NET and Umple. Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – 333 -blue at 06:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with keep, I think there are enough sources exists and those be ok to maintain article as stub. Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick search shows that there are many sources on this topic. There's nothing wrong with stubs. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 11:17, 21 July 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!} 05:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subodha Dahanayake[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAD zoglophie 05:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Sri Lanka. zoglophie 05:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Badminton-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. current sources are blogs and a database entry, and I couldn't find anything better. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:21, 22 July 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!} 05:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Government College, Port Harcourt[edit]

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

Secondary schools are not notable on there own and ~~there is nothing else in the article to establish notability~~ the article doesn't make note of anything notable but does provide sources to support some basic information about the school. See this discussion for the deletion of other articles that follow this same format. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Federal_Government_College,_Ganye. Not sure if this is important or not but it appears that these articles were made as part of a contest with gift cards as prizes. Previous articles from this contest were deleted Federal Government College, Ohafia and Federal Government Girls College, Zaria. This might explain why so many of these articles were produced so quickly.Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mass produced stub on non notable school. Mccapra (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Government Girls College, Umuahia[edit]

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

Secondary schools are not notable on there own and ~~there is nothing else in the article to establish notability~~ the article doesn't make note of anything notable but does provide sources to support some basic information about the school. See this discussion for the deletion of other articles that follow this same format. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Federal_Government_College,_Ganye. Not sure if this is important or not but it appears that these articles were made as part of a contest with gift cards as prizes. Previous articles from this contest were deleted Federal Government College, Ohafia and Federal Government Girls College, Zaria. This might explain why so many of these articles were produced so quickly. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Government College, Ilorin[edit]

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

Secondary schools are not notable on there own and ~~there is nothing else in the article to establish notability~~ the article doesn't make note of anything notable but does provide sources to support some basic information about the school. See this discussion for the deletion of other articles that follow this same format. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Federal_Government_College,_Ganye. Not sure if this is important or not but it appears that these articles were made as part of a contest with gift cards as prizes. Previous articles from this contest were deleted Federal Government College, Ohafia and Federal Government Girls College, Zaria. This might explain why so many of these articles were produced so quickly.Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see I passed this at NPP, but I shouldn’t have. Mccapra (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Nothing but trivial coverage and primary sources on the Internet. BilletsMauves (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Government College, Ugwolawo[edit]

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

Secondary schools are not notable on there own and ~~there is nothing else in the article to establish notability~~ the article doesn't make note of anything notable but does provide sources to support some basic information about the school. See this discussion for the deletion of other articles that follow this same format. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Federal_Government_College,_Ganye. Not sure if this is important or not but it appears that these articles were made as part of a contest with gift cards as prizes. Previous articles from this contest were deleted Federal Government College, Ohafia and Federal Government Girls College, Zaria. This might explain why so many of these articles were produced so quickly. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Government College, Warri[edit]

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

Secondary schools are not notable on there own and ~~there is nothing else in the article to establish notability~~ the article doesn't make note of anything notable but does provide sources to support some basic information about the school. See this discussion for the deletion of other articles that follow this same format. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Federal_Government_College,_Ganye. Not sure if this is important or not but it appears that these articles were made as part of a contest with gift cards as prizes. Previous articles from this contest were deleted Federal Government College, Ohafia and Federal Government Girls College, Zaria. This might explain why so many of these articles were produced so quickly. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Government Girls College, Ezzamgbo[edit]

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

Secondary schools are not notable on there own and ~~there is nothing else in the article to establish notability~~ the article doesn't make note of anything notable but does provide sources to support some basic information about the school. See this discussion for the deletion of other articles that follow this same format. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Federal_Government_College,_Ganye. Not sure if this is important or not but it appears that these articles were made as part of a contest with gift cards as prizes. Previous articles from this contest were deleted Federal Government College, Ohafia and Federal Government Girls College, Zaria. This might explain why so many of these articles were produced so quickly. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Government Girls College, Jalingo[edit]

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

Secondary schools are not notable on there own and ~~there is nothing else in the article to establish notability~~ the article doesn't make note of anything notable but does provide sources to support some basic information about the school. See this discussion for the deletion of other articles that follow this same format. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Federal_Government_College,_Ganye. Not sure if this is important or not but it appears that these articles were made as part of a contest with gift cards as prizes. Previous articles from this contest were deleted Federal Government College, Ohafia and Federal Government Girls College, Zaria. This might explain why so many of these articles were produced so quickly. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Government Girls College, Potiskum[edit]

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

Secondary schools are not notable on there own and ~~there is nothing else in the article to establish notability~~ the article doesn't make note of anything notable but does provide sources to support some basic information about the school. See this discussion for the deletion of other articles that follow this same format. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Federal_Government_College,_Ganye. Not sure if this is important or not but it appears that these articles were made as part of a contest with gift cards as prizes. Previous articles from this contest were deleted Federal Government College, Ohafia and Federal Government Girls College, Zaria. This might explain why so many of these articles were produced so quickly. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 19 July 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 11:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gamewright Games[edit]

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

Fails GNG, the only ref provided is its own website. Mentions in this marginally reliable/unreliable ref briefly 1 and trivial one here: 2, but I couldn't find any significant ones meeting GNG. VickKiang (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kingstanding explosion[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, local interest only. House fires, even with fatalities, are relatively common and not of encyclopedic interest. MB 02:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article shouldn’t be deleted as it is definitely news when an explosion kills one and injures others, as well as destroying a house. Furthermore, things like explosions to this scale rarely happen in the United Kingdom, making it even more newsworthy. Greyzxq (talk) 07:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MB 02:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes house explosions in the UK are less frequent, and it's very sad someone died, but this is not a notable event for inclusion here. This is Paul (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. One death and five injuries, with no related judiciary proceedings as of now, really aren't enough to warrant inclusion. BilletsMauves (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of covered bridges in the United States#South Dakota. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of covered bridges in South Dakota[edit]

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

A list with one item does not meet WP:LISTN. Probably needs a redirect to Edgemont, South Dakota. Bruxton (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and South Dakota. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One entry does not make a list. Ajf773 (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I just made the article List of covered bridges in the United States. Any list that doesn't have enough entries to justify its own article, can just have the information merged there. Dream Focus 09:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of covered bridges in the United States#South Dakota: Thanks to DreamFocus' creation of the article above, this seems like an appropriate WP:ATD. Having said that, I would prefer deletion to redirecting to Edgemont, South Dakota just because it's a bit of an expensive redirect, especially if another covered bridge were to be built in South Dakota. TartarTorte 15:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as proposed by DreamFocus and refined by TartarTorte. This will preserve the information while still allowing it to be found as if it were in a stand-alone list. Waz⁸:T-C-E 03:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect List with one entry and probably no room for expansion. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:19, 21 July 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 Miss Asia Pacific International. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Quest 1969[edit]

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

Miss Asia Quest 1969

Non-notable run-of-the-mill beauty contest. With no references, fails both verifiability and notability. Draft space would be an appropriate place for this article, but the author already has created a copy in article space. So the draft can be left alone, but this unsourced article can go into a bit bucket. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Beauty pageants, and Asia. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are we talking about both editions of Miss Asia Pacific International, the one held in 1968 and this one. I don't feel these are notable honestly but redirect to Miss Asia Pacific International is helpful. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 03:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:TheAafi - The article says it is about the one in 1969. A redirect is a reasonable alternative to deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 19 July 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!} 05:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Works of authority on the United Kingdom constitution[edit]

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

WP:OR and WP:POV. While of course some works are authoritative about (some aspects of) the constitution of the United Kingdom, there is no neutral, objective standard by which to select the items on this list. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Lists, and United Kingdom. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and copy this text on Constitution of the United Kingdom page.GorgonaJS (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with GorgonaJS. --Bduke (talk) 03:34, 19 July 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!} 06:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

American Career Institute[edit]

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

In the news when it closed and when the loans were forgiven, but no GNG level sourcing nor anything to indicate the school met WP:ORG at any point during its existence. Star Mississippi 00:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Schools, Maryland, and Massachusetts. Star Mississippi 00:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy @Neutrality and DGG: for PROD, decline, respectively. Star Mississippi 00:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have coverage at the level we require to pass the organizational notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did an extensive search including looking at all the former names. I found info that suggested Edward Snowden may have attended [[36]], but there's still not enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Joyce-stick (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dilbert (character)[edit]

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

Similar pages covering supporting characters from this comic strip were nominated for deletion (by myself) due to WP:GNG and WP:FANCRUFT at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wally (Dilbert), and a consensus to redirect to List of Dilbert characters was reached. There is no significant standalone coverage of this character, the page shares the same flaws as the previous nominated pages, and the previous consensus sets a precedent for redirecting. The only non-primary source is an interview with the creator, apparently mislabeled as being from The New York Times as it in fact appears self-published, which hardly qualifies. Thusly I am now nominating it for the same reasons, with a proposal to also redirect it to the list as was done previously. Joyce-stick (talk) 02:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Joyce-stick (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Joyce-stick (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found WP:THREE articles on Newspapers.Com like this one [37]https://www.newspapers.com/image/136046878/ and added them to the article. In this one, the writer distinguishes between the character Dilbert and the comic strip Dilbert and there appears to me to be WP:SIGCOV of him. Hard to believe that a character who was on the cover of 5 national magazines in a week (Fortune, Newsweek, etc.) in the 1990s and had his own Ben & Jerry's ice cream flavor would be up for deletion on Wikipedia. Watch your back, Snoopy! BBQboffin (talk) 04:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure you understand what significant coverage entails in the context of WP:FICTION. The sourced information (essentially, Dilbert was merchandised, promoted in magazines, and had a voice actor play him once) lacks substance- it is WP:TRIVIA. All it proves is that there was at one time a marketing push to improve the comic strip's popularity, and that does not prove Dilbert the character is a notable subject independent of the strip. I can't verify if the sources make any significant commentary on the character or not, as they're all paywalled, but if there is any significant critical commentary about the character within those sources, it should be added appropriately. Edit: I see the new information has been fleshed out further. That's a very interesting piece of trivia about Scott Adams' answering machine, but it's still trivia and seems more like commentary on the creator than the character. If we had more sources like that quote discussing the character's appeal, it could be a case for notability, but my opinion is overall unchanged for the moment. If the consensus is to delete the page, I'd say those sources are probably worth merging into the list of characters and/or the pages covering Adams and the comic strip when redirecting. Joyce-stick (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't believe this AfD is even being discussed. First off, I have no problem with the secondary characters in this comic being grouped into one article, and I'm also not a fan of the political inanity Scott Adams had facepalmed into in recent years. However, it's not correct to say the deletion of Wally's article "sets a precedent for redirecting." Each article's notability is determined on it's on.

From the 1990s through the early 2000s Dilbert was one of the leading comic strips in the world and the character of Dilbert was everywhere. If we say this character isn't notable, I don't know how we can justify keeping any articles about comic characters including Garfield, Charlie Brown, Snoopy, and so on. As for references to support the notability of this character, here are a few that specifically focus on the character, not the overall comic. Note that many of the unlinked articles can be found and read through the Wikipedia Library.

In 1997, Time Magazine named the character of Dilbert one of the "25 Most Influential Americans." and Dilbert was also featured on that issue's cover. Hard to argue that a comic book character isn't notable when he's named among the most influential people in a year. (Citation: "TIME's 25 Most Influential Americans, Apr. 21, 1997."
The character of Dilbert was on the cover of Newsweek’s August 12, 1996 issue, with the associated article described the character as the strip's "eponymous hero" and explored why people were drawn to this character. (Citation: "Working in Dilbert's World" by Steven Levy, Newsweek, August 12, 1996, pages 52-57.
"Social" by Ben Zimmer, the NY Times, April 3, 2010, where the character of Dilbert is called the "the Everyman of cubicle culture."
"Seven Days a Geek" from the Democrat and Chronicle, Dec. 29, 1995, which was shared above, is absolutely proof of notability for its analysis of the character. This is a major article in a reputable newspaper. We do not dismiss reliable news sources by saying "All it proves is that there was at one time a marketing push to improve the comic strip's popularity" b/c you could say the same about a lot of media coverage.
"Both Everyman and Other: 'Dilbert' as an Exemplar of Newspaper Comics' Simultaneous Identification and Distance" by Julie A. Davis, International Journal of Comic Art 11 no2 176-94 Fall 2009, which describes the character of Dilbert as a "stereotypical computer nerd."
"When Dilbert speaks on ethics, Lockheed Martin listens; defense contractor employs the comics-page character to train employees to handle tough questions of conduct" by Steven Ginsberg, The Washington Post, 1997.
"Why We Love Dilbert" by Bob Lee, Issues & Observations. 1996, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p7.
"DILBERT: Office geek, cyber nerd and now info hunk," Globe & Mail, July 6, 1996, which states of the character that "Some fans have suggested that Dilbert is a digital-class warrior, rallying the white collar workers of the world."
"THE ILLUSTRATED GEEK" by Stuart Turton, PC Pro, Jan 2013, Issue 219, which says "It's a far cry from the early days of the web, when geek comics were dominated by the weekly belittling of Dilbert - the office automaton being ordered around by a clueless manager in a shirt and tie. Dilbert resonated with every IT worker whose boss had more desk than brain."
The Geek Gap Why Business And Technology Professionals Don't Understand Each Other And Why They Need Each Other to Survive by Bill Pfleging, Prometheus 2009 page 109. where Mr. Spock and Dilbert are described as a "pop culture icons."
Information, Technology, and Innovation Resources for Growth in a Connected World by John M. Jordan, 2012, Whiley, page 148, where the character of Dilbert is called "cubicle America's cultural icon."

I could go on with the citations referencing the notability of this character (including a number of citations about the character of Dilbert being licensed). Again, back in the 1990s and early 2000s the character of Dilbert was everywhere. It's one thing to not have articles on minor or secondary characters in a notable comic strip like this. It's quite another to suggest that a comic strip character described as a "cultural icon" not have an article.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. I find that these kinds of fictional character AFDs become all about different peoples interpretation of GNG and Significant Coverage. Those with very high standards will look at the above and say all those mentions are trivial, or they lack "analysis" or that it can't be significant coverage unless its multiple paragraphs about the character. Personally I think the above is plenty to show the character Dilbert has real world notability and so there is no reason to delete the page. Rhino131 (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe that these many sources have sufficiently changed my opinion that the character of Dilbert is distinctly notable as opposed to the previously redirected non-notable supporting cast that were discussed in the previous nomination. As such, I am electing to Withdraw this nomination and will accordingly close the discussion shortly. Thank you all for your comments. Joyce-stick (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am discounting the !votes of the two new accounts. Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Hilal Al Barwani[edit]

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

Non-notable hacker, IT expert. Has done some good branding, but nothing else. Fails WP:GNG. Amon Stutzman (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Oman. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a great Linkedin post, not so useful here. Beyond the promotional stuff, no sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and the image is a copyvio from the last newspaper listed in the search. Even more proof of non-notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recent accomplishment on his IT activities @https://www.omanobserver.om/article/1120011/business/tariq-named-youth-ict-influencer-of-the-year and https://rssfeeds.timesofoman.com/article/117365-tariq-al-barwani-chosen-youth-ict-influencer-of-2022 and here 88.255.101.83 (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems notable from the search on his full name TerryWiki12 (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and reviewed the source. The article however needs to continue being improved. Excundar (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a Microsoft mention of his credibility https://mvp.microsoft.com/en-us/PublicProfile/37576?fullName=Tariq%20Hilal%20Al-Barwani TerryWiki12 (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Am sorry, but that doesn't really cut it for me when it comes to notability. Mathmo ^Talk 15:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - is not notable. (that wiki article would make for a great LinkedIn profile though!) Mathmo ^Talk 15:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't updating the content further be a better suggestion than deleting a notable article that would be valuable to a wikipedia? Excundar (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this AFD as "Delete" but it was contested so I have decided to relist the discussion for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable but needs further enhancement. Citations and info shared seems legitimate Excundar (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - is not notable.--VViking_TalkEdits 13:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify reasons of your vote so admin can have better consensus to delete or keep. Blindly saying delete would not really help. The article being 3 year old itself proves the person is notable apart from recent news updates Times of Oman Comex partners with Tariq Al Barwani for Tariq Clinic Muscat: Comex, Oman's official technology event, in partnership with Oman's popular ICT expert, Tariq Hilal Al Barwani, is set to launch... .May 16, 2022 , Times of Oman Tariq Al Barwani chosen 'Youth ICT Influencer of 2022' Muscat: Tariq Hilal Al Barwani has been honoured with the prestigious “Youth ICT Influencer of the year” award 2022. .1 month ago and https://timesofoman.com/article/118952-knowledge-oman-brings-spirit-of-eid-to-social-care-house Excundar (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this reads like a promotional entry or online blog/cv/resume. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Page will be updated and enhanced to reflect non promotional entry Excundar (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hamed Konarivand[edit]

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

fails Wikipedia:Notability he never participated in any important or even half-important competition and never won anything special. if you google his name you won't find much, no other articles in wikipedia is linked to this. Sports2021 (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. other articles of creator must be checked too.--Miha2020 (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by confirmed socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is very interesting, you asked for deletion, since the creator used plenty of sources in his mother languages such as Irna.ir, Isna.ir, Mehrnews.com,...that all of them are reliable and confirm that he have won many medals And also if you had little information about taekwondo you would understand well only notable taekwondo player has a page in taekwondodata.com. But it seems you think you are allowed to remove whatever you don't like. Bato02 (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] Hi bro, which competition is important ?? If you think only Olympic is important, yes you are right, he is not Notable. But if other medals are considered, he is Notable, I checked all his sources, he was member of national team and won many medals. Elm1234 (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment Kind of interesting that users with absolutely no activity on wikipedia came to support this page. not suspicious AT ALL ! btw taekwondodata has profile for every single Taekwondo athlete. who competed in one international competition. someone who never even participated in Asian Champs, Asian Games, World Champs, World GP (let alone winning a medal) is far from being notable. and btw sock puppetry is not allowed here, just saying. Sports2021 (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] Dear friend, I translate this page to Persian, I checked his sources, he is Notable, and also he participated in Asian games https://irna.ir/x3Kx7v Hami198766 (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment Yeah one more suck puppet account, Asian Games is different than low level Asian Club Championships. any more account? Sports2021 (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] I don't know what you are looking for. At first, you said that he never participated in any important or even half-important competition and never won't anything special' that I showed you some proof, then you said he never even participated in Asian Champs(let alone winning a medal) that Hami198766 showed you a proof. I think that you always wanted to be a champion, but it is to be regretted that you didn't even become an athlete. For this reason, you envy champions. Bato02 (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] Dear suck puppet, in all pages you asked for deletion, Miha2020 assist you Bato02 (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment no need to answer personal attacks, not even funny. and I already reported all these accounts for sock puppetry which is very obvious. but just to answer (for other people to read) by Asian Champs I obviously mean Asian Taekwondo Championships, not a low level Club competition.Sports2021 (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by confirmed socks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This is very interesting, you asked for deletion, since the creator used plenty of sources in his mother languages such as Irna.ir, Isna.ir, Mehrnews.com,...that all of them are reliable and confirm that he have won many medals And also if you had little information about taekwondo you would understand well only notable taekwondo player has a page in taekwondodata.com. But it seems you think you are allowed to remove whatever you don't like. Bato02 (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi bro, which competition is important ?? If you think only Olympic is important, yes you are right, he is not Notable. But if other medals are considered, he is Notable, I checked all his sources, he was member of national team and won many medals. Elm1234 (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kind of interesting that users with absolutely no activity on wikipedia came to support this page. not suspicious AT ALL ! btw taekwondodata has profile for every single Taekwondo athlete. who competed in one international competition. someone who never even participated in Asian Champs, Asian Games, World Champs, World GP (let alone winning a medal) is far from being notable. and btw sock puppetry is not allowed here, just saying. Sports2021 (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend, I translate this page to Persian, I checked his sources, he is Notable, and also he participated in Asian games https://irna.ir/x3Kx7v Hami198766 (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah one more suck puppet account, Asian Games is different than low level Asian Club Championships. any more account? Sports2021 (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are looking for. At first, you said that he never participated in any important or even half-important competition and never won't anything special' that I showed you some proof, then you said he never even participated in Asian Champs(let alone winning a medal) that Hami198766 showed you a proof. I think that you always wanted to be a champion, but it is to be regretted that you didn't even become an athlete. For this reason, you envy champions. Bato02 (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear suck puppet, in all pages you asked for deletion, Miha2020 assist you Bato02 (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no need to answer personal attacks, not even funny. and I already reported all these accounts for sock puppetry which is very obvious. but just to answer (for other people to read) by Asian Champs I obviously mean Asian Taekwondo Championships, not a low level Club competition.Sports2021 (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Taekwondodata.com shows no evidence of him even competing at a major continental or world event. I don't believe that there's enough evidence to show WP notability. I checked against the criteria at WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT, and WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. couldn't find any significant coverage for the subject. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 19:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LeftRight Music Group[edit]

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

Fails GNG. I refused a CSD on it because it didn't quite qualify, but the company is simply non-notable, too small, too new, and fails GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7; there is no secondary sourcing about this company (which needs to meet WP:NCORP) apart from a press release in America Daily Post, which is blacklisted so I can't even put the url here. If the only source doesn't meet WP:ORGIND, I don't see why the CSD was declined. ~Styyx^Talk? 00:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of secondary sourcing isn't a valid CSD criteria. See WP:CSD. The criteria is very strict, and this didn't pass any of the available criterias for speedy, or I would have. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I still don't see how this isn't a direct A7. ~Styyx^Talk? 01:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A7 requires there is no CLAIM of notability, and they are making a claim. If they make a claim of notability but provide zero proof, you still can't A7 it. A7 is a very tough one to pass. Had I A7'ed it, I would expect to be dragged to WP:XRV to explain why I CSD'ed something that doesn't qualify. Trust me, it doesn't qualify. I've been down this road for 16 years dealing with CSD criteria. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got nothin'. Literally. I can't find any indication this company has been covered by anyone, anywhere. Fails WP:GNG emphatically. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 01:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - due to a lack of notability. However, nom is correct, G7 not applicable here. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. The number of external links in this article is extreme as well; StartOkayStop (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not one of the more important indies per WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company and the appropriate SNG is WP:NCORP. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and I am unable to locate any that does. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:20, 25 July 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.