< July 21	July 23 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Coldplay discography#Promotional singles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

U.F.O. (Coldplay song)[edit]

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

Fairly unremarkable release in terms of independent significant coverage, there doesn't seem to be any. Information could be (and is already contained) at parent album page. See WP:NSONGS about the conditions that should be met for standalone articles. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Agreed, this is not notable and is fairly unremarkable. "2,000 copies pressed for Record Store Day" seems to be about the most "remarkable" thing about it. I'm starting to become a little concerned about the uptick in articles for unremarkable songs being created by editors who are fans of said music acts... Ss112 22:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coldplay discography#Promotional singles or Mylo Xyloto (2011). And I think "Up with the Birds" should be redirected along with it. I feel you User:Ss112, as a Coldplay fan myself I've been doing my best to remove their non-notable releases. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 12:50, 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 redirect to Music of the Spheres (Coldplay album). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People of the Pride[edit]

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

The majority of this article is sourced from coverage of the parent album. There is little significant coverage which is specific to the song as an independent topic, which is one of the essential determinants of song notability for standalone articles per WP:NSONGS. Album page already mentions significant information from this article. There's also some inappropriate sourcing e.g. some synthesis (ref 5, leak of demo youtube and ref 10, a student newspaper). >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The coverage is primarily in reviews for the album, and despite an AllAccess add date, the song did not chart. Ss112 22:42, 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 23:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steven McKagen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. I looked for some sources but was not able to find any on him. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question Sportsfan 1234 can you tell us of any searches you did to find information, and if you found anything even hits that did not add towards passing GNG?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a search on google. I was not able to find anything that amounted to indepth coverage. I found some places where the name was included in what looked like it would have information, but no information was provided. I also found this page [1] that merely the name listing and seems to indicate he was used as a sub during a match. I could not find anything that would indicate indepth coverage. That was when I added "football" to the search. When I did a search with just the name, I found lots of hits on a person with the same name who is an ecologist, although at least on the first page none of those look to be GNG passing either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not in line with gng BIG BURLEY 17:08, 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 redirect to Music of the Spheres (Coldplay album). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biutyful[edit]

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

The majority of this article is sourced from coverage of the parent album. There is little significant coverage which is specific to the song as an independent topic, which is one of the essential determinants of song notability for standalone articles per WP:NSONGS. Album page already mentions significant information from this article. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Half the sources aren't about this song specifically, and the rest seem to care more about its "quirky" puppet video or the band performing it on Fallon than the song itself. Ss112 22:45, 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 23:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastien Manabat[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks to fail WP:N Jeepday (talk) 14:47, 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 23:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Loken[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N Jeepday (talk) 14:49, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Kynman[edit]

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

Some trivial coverage in reliable sources, one seemingly significant role in CBeebies. Otherwise, doesn't appear to pass WP:NACTOR. Throast (talk | contribs) 20:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 8 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!} 23:01, 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!} 23:24, 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. The one "keep" opinion does not address the reason for deletion. Sandstein 19:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of networking test equipment vendors[edit]

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

Can't find any indication this meets WP:LISTCRIT. We don't even have a separate article for networking test equipment, so I can't see how this is a relevant organizational category. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Lists. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If we had a Network test equipment article no one would be advocating for deletion. Creating this list first is arguably putting the cart before the horse but deleting it now is WP:DEMOLISH. ~Kvng (talk) 20:16, 18 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, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also delete List of Networking Test Equipment Vendors (redirect page) There are no incoming links to either. I don't see where this adds any value to Wikipedia nor do I see where it meets WP:LISTCRIT. Jeepday (talk) 14:53, 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 12:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wholecoiner[edit]

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

Uncited cryptocurrency neologism. No evidence of currency in RSes. Declined PROD - decliner cited that there was "at least one good source", but that was an Investopedia article that literally didn't mention the neologism. Closest I could find in a WP:BEFORE was Forbes India, but that turned out to be a contributor piece. Are there any RS cites for the actual neologism? Even if it passed, it seems it would be a dictionary definition and not an encyclopedia article - David Gerard (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Finance. David Gerard (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, saw the Forbes India piece as well, but not a good source. Nothing else found, urbandictionary isn't a source. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is what I identified as the good source. ~Kvng (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That could be one of the worst and most perfunctory articles I've read in a nominal WP:NEWSORG, written in five minutes from a couple of crypto blogs. Even granting it RS status, do we have anything else? - David Gerard (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I was not able to find anything else but I thought it would be useful to have others look before it was deleted. ~Kvng (talk) 20:53, 18 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, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sufficient evidence of notability has not emerged. ~Kvng (talk) 22:25, 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. ✗plicit 04:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus James[edit]

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

No substantial sources establishing stand-alone notability outside of passing mentions. If this band is notable enough, then Markus James should be within an article titled "Markus James and the Wassonrai" listing discography and discussing the band and its works. While I would normally recommend a renaming, there is no content worth saving for this article as it is mostly puffery and establishes the bare existence of Markus James. Per WP:TNT, we would be better off just removing this article entirely. Jcmcc (Talk) 20:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jcmcc (Talk) 20:56, 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!} 23:23, 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 Balkan Basketball Championship. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan Basketball Championship 1959[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:NSEASONS/WP:SIGCOV. – Meena • 12:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Romania. – Meena • 12:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I note that new user, Lefterislefteris (talk · contribs), is creating lots of yearly spinouts of Balkan Basketball Championship, and that the spinouts have no secondary source content, and fail WP:SPINOUT. They should be directed to improve Balkan Basketball Championship and to not make spinouts without consensus established at Talk:Balkan Basketball Championship. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 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!} 23:21, 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. Weak consensus that we lack the sourcing necessary to verify Ziv's work Star Mississippi 02:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan Ziv[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ilan Ziv

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

No way to verify that prizes claimed were actually received, even assuming they are sufficient to warrant this page

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete passing mentions about his recent film on Jewish exiles, nothing substantive, but if he was the winner of these awards, could be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the thing is that it is impossible to independently verify that these awards were indeed received, assuming they are even noteworthy, as the prizes are either very old and/or the organizations dont list past winners and/or the film festivals themselves are minor Newtonewyork (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He meets WP:FILMMAKER #3 and #4. I'm less sure about the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not to sure I agree with you re. WP:FILMMAKER #3 and #4, there are no 'multiple articles' confirming the prizes claimed, and the single articles out there do not discuss the work at length. Newtonewyork (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome to disagree with me. We are often making things too complex and hold way too many discussions. We can use our time MUCH better in the article space. As I see it, without passing the WP:GNG, Ziv does not pass the bar. So this nomination happens to be justified. Don't take away from your ACHIEVEMENT by starting pointless discussions with both opinionators, who basically agree with you! I see the awards as an indication of notability. Coverage would be proof. Just had a similar case with a Dutch producer with a huge number of movies. One of these won a prestigious prize. He stayed away from publicity. That can't start at WP. gidonb (talk) 00:40, 19 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!} 23:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 20:00, 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. ✗plicit 04:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Captain India[edit]

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

Caution off the top that this is not the apparently current or imminent Hansal Mehta film, so any search for sources will have to be careful not to confuse the two.
This is an apparently never released film whose "sources" are more than a decade old (so it isn't just an upcoming release), and which is not shown as having sufficient reliable source coverage to exempt it from the primary notability criteria for films at WP:NFO. The four footnotes here are all either very short blurbs or dead links whose content is entirely unverifiable (one even leads to a Wayback link that still blanks out), and the article isn't making any notability claim strong enough that it would still pass the ten year test for enduring significance.
As I can't read Hindi, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can find stronger Hindi-language sourcing than I've been able to find in English -- but while it was a good faith creation in 2010 as its intended release was still upcoming at that time, nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to still keep an article in 2022 despite its failure to ever actually get released. Bearcat (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 12:35, 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!} 23:20, 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 no consensus. There is no consensus here, and no prospect of a consensus forming at this time. BD2412 T 19:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sikkim Ekta Manch[edit]

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

Short-lived political party that only existed between two elections. no indication of notability. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable - "The two main parties in Sikkim are : Sikkim Democratic Front ( SDF ) and Sikkim Ekta Manch ( SEM ) . " ([2]), "The formation of a political affairs cell of the ruling Sikkim Democratic Front and the likely merger of the Sikkim Ekta Manch with the Congress are ominous signals ." ([3]), "The opposition groups Sikkim Sangram Parishad ( SSP ) , Sikkim Ekta Manch ( SEM ) and Sikkim National Front ( SNF ) fought SDF candidate " unitedly " by supporting the Congress which was an ally of the ..." ([4]), "The much-awaited third force in Sikkim politics was formally launched on Wednesday with former state power secretary Laxmi Parasad Tewari forming the Sikkim Ekta Manch. Former minister and former Sikkim Pradesh Congress Committee vice-president Thuchuk Lachungpa proposed Tewari's name as the president, which was unanimously accepted by other leaders." ([5]). Also, for the record notability isn't time dependent. If it was notable for a short period, it's notable for wikipedia. --Soman (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't verify some of your sources (I assume some sort of country-restriction), but the first three refs that you found are bare mentions (judging from your quotes). The last one is a bit more substantive, but it is only about the creation of the party. I agree that the party was anticipated to affect the politics of the state a lot. But what did it actually achieve in its 16-month existence? As far as i can tell, nothing of note. P.S. Since you've taken the time to find sources, you could add them to the article in question too. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence on IndiaVotes that this party ever stood any candidates in any election. It looks more like a breakaway from the Indian National Congress by two Sikkim nationalists who themselves then split, then both in just over a year rejoined the INC. Unless they did something truly notable in that year (seems unlikely) this is never going to be a standalone article. Possibly a passing mention in the INC article, but even that seems WP:UNDUE since it looks like they had zero impact on anything. SpinningSpark 11:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep I was able to verify all of Soman's sources. Given the location and time, it is more than reasonable to assume that there is further offline sourcing available.^[1]^[2]

References

^ "Sikkim Ekta Manch urge Political Reform in Sikkim". Sikkim Express. 26 August – 1 September 1997.
^ Syangbo, Genevive (2010). The Sikkim Democratic Front and the Politics of Popular Mobilisation in Sikkim (1993-2004) (PDF) (PhD). University of North Bengal.

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search of the rediff.com site turns up 6 Indian press sources from 1997-98 on SEM. Reinforces reasonable presumption that further offline sourcing available. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, SEM ran a joint candidate in the 1998 Lok Sabha election with Congress, the Sikkim Sangram Parishad and the Sikkim National Front. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is limited to WP:PASSING mentions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:12, 31 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) — Bilorv (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's About Damn Time[edit]

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

Sourcing shows no notability with the possible exception of Fortune, which is not verifiable (paywall) and by itself not enough. The PRH site - cited - lists blurbs, Goodreads and the book's Audible edition are not presentable sources. Backstage Capital is a VC with no editorial policy. Search shows no notability, no in-depth coverage, independent reviews or anything else that would get this book beyond WP:GNG. The song by Lizzo, clearly, IS notable... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Business, and Management. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect to "About Damn Time". Nom summed it up perfectly. ~~(Special out now)~~ —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding some things here and there, but I'm running into two issues. The first is that some of them are from places that may not be reliable. For example, I found CRWNMAG, but it looks like they may offer articles as part of their advertising package, which poses a possible COI. The other issue is that when there is coverage, the article is more about the author herself as opposed to the book. My personal thought so far is to just flesh out the article on Hamilton and then add a hatnote on the Lizzo song article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:52, 22 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!} 23:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
1. "It's About Damn Time: How to Turn Being Underestimated into Your Greatest Advantage". Kirkus Reviews. 2020-02-24. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25.
  This is a 315-word book review. The book review notes: "Refreshing in its inclusivity, Hamilton’s book offers wise and practical lessons from the margins to all “underestimated people” looking to make a difference in the world of business and beyond. Inspiring reading for budding entrepreneurs."
2. "It's About Damn Time: How to Turn Being Underestimated into Your Greatest Advantage". Publishers Weekly. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25.
  This is a 213-word book review. The book review notes: "In this excellent debut, Hamilton, founder of the venture capital firm Backstage Capital, shares how she went from being on food stamps and sleeping at the San Francisco airport to running her own multimillion-dollar investment fund. ... Though any reader can use Hamilton’s sage advice, this will be a must-read for anyone interested in venture capital."
3. King, Rachel (2020-12-05). "The 10 best business books of 2020". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25.
  The article provides 171 words of coverage about the book. The article notes: "Despite the extreme inequality—especially for women of color—in Silicon Valley and the business world at large, Hamilton argues in It’s About Damn Time (Currency) that a privileged background, an influential network, and a fancy college degree are not prerequisites for success, further suggesting that being undervalued simply means that a bigger upside exists."
4. Clarke, Caroline (2020-05-01). "About Damn Time! Venture Capitalist Arlan Hamilton's New Book Is Filled With Crisis-Busting Advice". Black Enterprise. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25.
  The article notes: "Endorsed by big names like Fair Fight's Stacey Abrams and Shark Tank entrepreneur Mark Cuban, Hamilton's book is packed with lessons in cultivating independence, self-confidence, courage, and tenacity."
5. Adams, Jennifer (2020-05-01). "It's about Damn Time: How to Turn Being Underestimated into Your Greatest Advantage". Booklist. Vol. 116, no. 17. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via Gale.
  This is a 173-word book review. The book review notes: "Readers will find it easy to be inspired by her success stories and admire her drive to continue after each defeat. ... This book will appeal to those her company encourages as well as young women seeking a fresh and motivating role model."
6. Kekana, Chrizelda (2020-10-11). "Book Bites". Sunday Times. p. 9. ProQuest 2449783305.
  This is an 85-word book review. The book review notes: "Hamilton does a great job of making the reader feel like they're a friend she's having an intimate conversation with, letting them into her truth. While her narrative is about helping black, LGBTQI+ women in a white, male-dominated industry, her rags-to-riches story will appeal to all. She does a fine job of weaving in her emotions and life experiences and does an even better job of outlining practical things she's done to improve her life and to become the successful venture capitalist she is today."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow It's About Damn Time: How to Turn Being Underestimated into Your Greatest Advantage to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment These are routine coverage from a publisher's PR round, not non-trivial works, IMHO.

1. Kirkus sells reviews, is not RS.
2. A blurb written from PR copy, not a review.
3. Fortune noted in nomination.
4. This piece uses the immortal words, "Hamilton’s new book’s press release echoes data she often shares in interviews" - another PR copy.
5. Short review in Booklist, a specialist librarian's review title. Any publisher will submit titles for review.
6. Sunday Times Johannesburg - Book bites are short reviews, as noted, 85 words.
Despite Cunard's diligence, I still do not believe we are in "non-trivial published works" territory. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Kirkus Reviews, "Most content by Kirkus Reviews is considered to be generally reliable. Kirkus Indie is a pay for review program for independent authors, its content is considered to be questionable and to not count towards notability, in part because the author can choose whether or not the review is published." According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 356#Kirkus Reviews, again, paid reviews such as this one are tagged "Review Program: Kirkus Indie". The review I posted is not tagged under "Review Program: Kirkus Indie", so I consider it an independent reliable source.
Publishers Weekly is a reliable source. It includes independent analysis such as calling the book an "excellent debut", "sage advice", and a "must-read for anyone interested in venture capital". The 171-word coverage in the Fortune article provides significant coverage of the book and was not contested in the nomination statement. The 173-word Booklist review is significant coverage. The book has received more than enough significant coverage in reviews to pass Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria, which requires significant coverage in only two reviews. Cunard (talk) 01:00, 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. While it is overwhelming to have many articles on a similar subject nominated for deletion very quickly after each other, that is no reason to cut & paste the same response to each nomination. I think it would be better in cases like this to ask for a relisting for cases that will take longer to track down sources than to provide a generic response.

But I also think mass nominations should be discouraged as they can easily overwhelm editors who regularly participate in deletion discussions and who want to consider each individual case thoughtfully. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jauron Gayle[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has clearly decided all players that play for national teams he does not feel confer notability are those which should be deleted. The usual revisionism and elitism around notability in sports Zanoni (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many others and I have raised the point that this revisionism and clean-sweep of articles that were previously considered notable but are no longer is not productive to Wikipedia. We have raised the point that articles previously written should be "grandfathered" as notable. You contribute to a lot of these discussions. What are your feelings on the subject?Gri3720 (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources present that meet GNG. Articles should never be "grandfathered" ever. Articles need to be judged by current inclusion criteria. When inclusion criteria change we remove those articles that no longer meet notability criteria. We do not lock in inclusion criteria when an article is created. When Wikipedia was created it had no inclusion criteria at all. Eventually we realized that we needed some, and over time they have been changed based on community consensus. When these changes occur articles that no longer meet the new standard are removed. Only articles that meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria can be justified in being kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. No such coverage is in the article and none has been presented here. Alvaldi (talk) 13:05, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shemaron Carty[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has clearly decided all players that play for national teams he does not feel confer notability are those which should be deleted. The usual revisionism and elitism around notability in sports Zanoni (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it is very likely that the nominator did not do a proper BEFORE search, I was not able to find enough sources to meet GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SICOV. This is a modern day athlete from an English speaking country so sources should be fairly accessible. Alvaldi (talk) 13:46, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Paris[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found these sources: [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10] among other sources. In addition, he is a 13-time internationally capped player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I wrote this another 30 are probably deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has clearly decided all players that play for national teams he does not feel confer notability are those which should be deleted. The usual revisionism and elitism around notability in sports Zanoni (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 15:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Thesetpieces is an interview and the rest is routine coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, international footballer and there is coverage as shown by Das osmnezz.--Mvqr (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources by Das osmnezz.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:51, 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. Less Unless (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kion Lee[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has clearly decided all players that play for national teams he does not feel confer notability are those which should be deleted. The usual revisionism and elitism around notability in sports Zanoni (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources that are on this page meet GNG. Wikipedia is not meant to be a collection of sports stats tables masquerading as articles. Articles in Wikipedia are meant to be articles. I cannot speak to the nominator, but I did a search on google and found no substantive sources. It is very likely the nominator was investigating the whole group for some time and then put them all up for nomination. If people want, we can leave this open for longer for people to look for sources, but it is not justified to keep articles that have no sources on them. All articles must pass the current notability guidelines to be kept. Unless we can find GNG meeting sources, which none of the sources here are, than we cannot justify keeping the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial mentions in match reports and squad lists but no actual substantial coverage so fails GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and I can't find any sources to that makes the player notable. Poppified ^talk 17:34, 30 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. No rationale for deletion given, invalid nomination (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Austin (footballer)[edit]

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

HeinzMaster (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:27, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Bertie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @NemesisAT:. I found these sources: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], and [16] among other sources. In addition, he is one of few BVI players to play abroad ever, a 11-time internationally capped player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I wrote this another 30 are probably deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found above. The article needs improving, yes, but not deletion. Given the sources that have been found I think it is safe to say that he is notable. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has clearly decided all players that play for national teams he does not feel confer notability are those which should be deleted. The usual revisionism and elitism around notability in sports Zanoni (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 15:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Das osmnezz's sources are woeful. Match reports, an interview and transfer stories are all routine coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 12:32, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Caesar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Besides the fact that the nominator appears to have made the nomination in bad faith, there does appear to be independent coverage of Caesar. See [17][18][19]. I’m not familiar with Virgin Island Daily News or Cayman Compass, but they appear to be local newspapers in the American Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands. Not sure how reliable or respected they are, but the point still stands. There is significant independent coverage of Caesar to warrant an article. Fats40boy11 (talk) 06:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG. I don't think the sources above are SIGCOV, but this is. Giant Snowman 19:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has clearly decided all players that play for national teams he does not feel confer notability are those which should be deleted. The usual revisionism and elitism around notability in sports. 22 international caps and ongoing international career. Zanoni (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found another sources which show he is notable in British Virgin Islands: 5. In addition, he is a young 22-time international capped player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:10, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

D'Andre Rowe[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @NemesisAT:. I found these sources which show he is notable in Cayman: [20], [21], [22], [23], and [24] among other sources. In addition, he is featured in videos (like this) and is a young international caped player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I wrote this another 30 are probably deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has clearly decided all players that play for national teams he does not feel confer notability are those which should be deleted. The usual revisionism and elitism around notability in sports Zanoni (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 15:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, an international with coverage as shown by Das osmnezz.--Mvqr (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources by Das osmnezz.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:04, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Ebanks[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @NemesisAT:. I found these sources which show he is notable in Cayman Islands: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], and [34]. In addition, he is a 16-time internationally capped (and 4th most goals all-time for his country) player with an ongoing career and was voted 2017 Cayman footballer of the year. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I wrote this another 30 are probably deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has clearly decided all players that play for national teams he does not feel confer notability are those which should be deleted. The usual revisionism and elitism around notability in sports Zanoni (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 15:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is an international player and there is coverage as Das osmnezz shows.--Mvqr (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we clearly have enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with sources by Das osmnezz.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:06, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshewa Frederick-Charlery[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @NemesisAT:. I found theese sources which show he is notable in Cayman Islands: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]. [49], [50], In addition, he is considered best player in his position in Cayman (see this), captain of his national team, one of fey Caymanian to play abroad ever, a 15-time internationally capped (9th most caps all-time for his country) player with an ongoing professional career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I wrote this another 30 are probably deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Serious concerns about BEFORE here. Giant Snowman 15:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, international player and there is coverage as shown above.--Mvqr (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources by Das osmnezz passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:07, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karson Kendall[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Caribbean, and Arizona. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but not because of the other 25 AfD's. Rather, because Kendall meets the notability criteria of WP:NSPORT. – S. Rich (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @NemesisAT: and @Srich32977:. Also, I found these sources which show he is notable in United States and Virign islands: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. In addition, he is a young, already internationally capped player with an ongoing career, and is the subject of many videos (like this, this, and this among other sources. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I wrote this another 30 are probably deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 15:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has significant coverage.--Mvqr (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Das osmnezz sources passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:14, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yazidis in Turkey[edit]

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

There is not any source in the article about Yazidis in Turkey. About the population source, I checked it, there's nothing mentioned about Yazidis. Beshogur (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another one, I suppose.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 21:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Social science, and Turkey. jp×g 21:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. jp×g 21:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; while the article's state at the time of nomination was indeed quite woeful, it has improved significantly in the intervening six years, to the point where none of the claims in the nomination would seem relevant. jp×g 21:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination is stale, and there are now at least two cited sources specifically dedicated to Yazidis in Turkey, plus mention in sources about the broader Yazidi community, so it seems to meet GNG. The article still is in need of improvement, but that is not a job for AfD. Agricolae (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a legitimate article with loads of sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beshogur, would you be willing to take another look at the state of the article to determine if you still want it to be deleted? Thanks. ~Styyx^Talk? 22:13, 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!} 21:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peg Luksik[edit]

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

Non-notable perennial candidate/activist. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. All sourcing I could find after combing through multiple search engines was either run-of-the-mill campaign coverage, WP:PRIMARY sources, or secondary sources containing only brief mention of the subject. Found no (non-routine) significant coverage in WP:RS-compliant sourcing whatsoever. Sal2100 (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, Women, and Pennsylvania. Sal2100 (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Clearly fails WP:NPOL; never elected only trivial mentions. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 20:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 05:30, 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 Withdrawn. I am withdrawing the nomination for deletion, and instead I will move the article to draftspace. (non-admin closure) ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 22:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Outlaw[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NMMA. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix was 28th, and he has not previously appeared in any of Sherdog's top 10 lists. Page was also previously deleted in January for not meeting the former guidelines. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 19:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered by BBC. [51] and various other sites. HeinzMaster (talk) 19:41, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Ralph[edit]

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

Although I am a long-term editor, we are all always learning and for this reason I am suggesting that my own article, Ethan Ralph,

be deleted (created on 1 January 2021) for failing both the WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Before I explain exactly what led me to carefully consider these pages in light of Ralph's page, ultimately changing my mind on my own work, I will make the main argument:

the coverage of Ralph is not significant coverage, it is in almost all cases trivial. A WP:BLP1E, an assault on a police officer, resulted in the majority of the high-quality sources (WaPo, BI), which for the most part discuss only that incident; further…
the #Healstream controversy, which I once found significant proof of Ralph's notability, was not thought so by sources: all sources on this, such as WSJ, use Ralph only as an example to put his alleged abuse of Super Chats in a broader context; and finally
all other sources are either WP:SPS or make trivial mention of Ralph.

The content dispute which led to this realization in me goes as follows:

Bilby removed a good deal of one section of the article, writing right wing watch - questionable source. I reinstate the content as their edit contained an obvious grammatical mistake, and I thought this would be fine per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD. However, Bilby then blanks the whole section because this is a BLP (sorry, I forgot this rule), so we have to discuss it on talk before reinstatement. I fail to convince Bilby of my idea to add ((Cite court)). I then consider using WP:ABOUTSELF for the plea of no contest, but then, on further reflection, I decide: it is time to stop twisting myself into knots. Ralph was not as notable as I thought. I thought that WP:BLP1E would not apply as he seemed to be rising in notability in 2021. When no RS noted his guilty plea for dissemination of revenge porn, I should have read the writing on the wall: Ethan Ralph is a non-notable alt-right pseudo-celebrity and this article should have never been created.

Regards, Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Conservatism, Conspiracy theories, Discrimination, and Virginia. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 19:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would be inclined to agree with you here -- the sourcing here is pretty lackluster, and WP:MILL. I do not see WP:SIGCOV, and the stuff he's done doesn't seem inherently notable. Looking through the revision history, even the stuff that got removed is basically window dressing for a nothingburger of an article: some guy was a jackass on the Internet, he got kicked off a website for it, he broke the law, he got arrested, whoopty-doo. Are we writing articles about every guy who gets banned from a website or breaks the law now? jp×g 22:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He picked up some limited coverage during GamerGate, but was not a significant figure even then. Lacks the sustained coverage needed to maintain a BLP. - Bilby (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly the best source here is the one about him getting arrested for getting drunk and taking a swing at a cop, which needless to say does not normally confer notability. Most of the sources are passing mentions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. and jp×g. A WP:BLP1E that thoroughly fails WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like a BLP1E and lacks sustained coverage. The only sources with significant coverage arose from the public intoxication incident in 2016. Having no reliable sources address the more recent revenge porn conviction speaks to a rather low profile. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 02:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Xenomancer (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ˈˈˈKeepˈˈˈ. But revert to include conviction references. The article has had over 10,000 page views in the past month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:80:4301:2D0:E1DB:C41E:B2E7:E37F (talk) 04:29, 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 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!} 21:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ababkov[edit]

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

Surname page... but there are no entries. It's essentially just reciting its entry from the Dictionary of Modern Russian Last Names. WP is not a dictionary or name database and the article is not helpful. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Russia. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, which requires multiple sources of significant coverage. Fails MOS:DABNAME if there are not entries of people with this name.—Bagumba (talk) 07:36, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Amaro[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Besides and in addition to offline sources (due to being a player and title-winning Brazilian coach during the 1960s-90s), these sources show his notability in Brazil and Brunei: 1, [2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. He has had an extensive pro playing and coaching career and has coached a national team. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I wrote this another 30 are probably deleted. Article needs improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article about football player and manager who competed in the top Brazilian state championships during the 1960s and 1970s. There is SIGCOV available in online Portuguese-language sources, and certainly more for those who can access newspaper archives from the years he played. Jogurney (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 15:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His multiple obituaries in the Brazilian media should be enough to pass WP:GNG. EternalNomad (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 delete. The "keep" opinions assert that the subject meets WP:GNG, but they do not explain by virtue of which sources she does so. These opinions are therefore discounted. Sandstein 13:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqui Melksham[edit]

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

The subject seems to be notable only for a single event. Normally, I'd suggest that the page be redirected to the event at issue, but it seems that the game itself isn't notable enough to merit an article, so I think deletion is warranted. Plandu (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Plandu (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she officiated the opening match of the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup, plus one more match a quarter final. That alone is within WP:GNG. Good sourcing as well.BabbaQ (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ So officiating in more than one match equals an automatic GNG pass? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Officiating the opening match of the world cup does.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, significant coverage in sources meets GNG. Giant Snowman 15:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of significant sources. She officiated the World Cup opening match. Definitely meets WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this trolling, or do you not actually understand what GNG is? JoelleJay (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per @BabbaQ:. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I wrote this another 30 are probably deleted. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any significant coverage of her. Dougal18 (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of significant sources in the article.BabbaQ (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. BTW England's up 4-0 and appears to be heading to the UEFA Women's Euro 2022 Final. I'm watching the match on ESPN in the States and what a crowd! GS, you must be thrilled! Hmlarson (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Hmlarson, WP:GNG has been met indeed. And also congrats to England.BabbaQ (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The FIFA source is not independent, N. Worldfootball.net is a stats database, fails SIGCOV N. The DFB.de site just lists Melksham's name -- trivial coverage, N. No idea what's in the South East Advertiser, ?. The ESPN opinion piece is WP:primary and does not contain SIGCOV, N. The CBS opinion piece is also primary, N. JoelleJay (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG due to a complete absence of significant coverage in sources independent of the subject. Participation-based criteria no longer exist for football and, in any case, referees were never covered under WP:NFOOTBALL so this would have been a 'delete' even before the recent WP:NSPORTS changes. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I don't see how GNG is met. I mostly agree with JoelleJay's analysis, except the South East Advertiser is a newspaper, very local, but let's give it the benefit of the doubt. 1 reliable source with possible significant coverage. I also don't think that PRIMARY applies to the ESPN opinion column nor the CBS piece. This quibble is really a point of order. They are opinion pieces, yes, and not reporting. Therefore they are not likely to have useful encyclopedic information, and I think these are no exception, because while the topic's actions are discussed for this one event, it doesn't make an encyclopedia article. I have some sympathy that the topic may pass ANYBIO#2 as refereeing a World Cup match is a rare accomplishment, but I just don't see this passing WP:WHYN. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@78.26, FWIW, I'm basing my PRIMARY analysis on opinion columns and editorials being included as examples of primary sources here and here, and therefore explicitly excluded from contributing to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, that's fine, but better to cite WP:RSEDITORIAL then, not PRIMARY, in my opinion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The South East Advertiser piece (available via NewsBank) is about 280 words, but over 100 of them are Melksham expressing her feelings about the final etc. I couldn't find enough independent coverage in reliable coverage to argue that the subject meets GNG, although there were lots of reports covering her role in the US-Brazil match. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Opinion is mostly split between "keep or merge" and "delete". The former camp considers the incident notable because of the coverage it received, the latter believes that Ohio's abortion laws and their impact on the 10-year-old at issue are the story, not her alleged rape as such. These are prima facie valid arguments, and therefore I must consider their weight in the light of applicable policy.

In my view, WP:SUSPECT, part of the core policy WP:BLP, must be given great weight here. It provides that "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." In this discussion, only two people on the "keep" side undertake this consideration as mandated by the policy, and they both agree that the name of the alleged perpetrator is not material to the topic. Policy-informed consensus, therefore, is that an article with this title or with content that names the alleged perpetrator must not be kept.

This rules out a redirect or a merger, which would both preserve the name as a search term. The only BLP-compliant outcome is therefore to delete the article. This is, I dare say, no great loss to Wikipedia, given that the article in its entirety reads: "The [N.N.] sexual assault case is a 2022 event in the United States in which [N.N.], age 27, has been accused of sexually assaulting a 10 -year-old girl in Ohio. The girl traveled to Indiana to get an abortion, which was prohibited in Ohio." It should be no great trouble for interested editors to either create from scratch a much better new article that focuses on the abortion law issues raised by this case, or to add such content to e.g. Abortion in Ohio. Sandstein 19:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gershon Fuentes sexual assault case[edit]

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

Accused non public figure. WP:SUSPECT. I prodded and an editor removed it. Reported at WP:BLPN and an admin suggested AfD. Bruxton (talk) 01:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : The living individual concerned has no notability other than being charged with this crime, which is reprehensible but not unique and not worthy of a Wikipedia article. In any case, he hasn't been convicted so WP:BLPCRIME applies, and the article is basically a WP:COATRACK for pointing out the consequence of the Ohio abortion laws for the victim. Neiltonks (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but rename) or Merge : There are two stories here, so I understand why one could see this article as a WP:COATRACK. But this is a notable crime where an unnamed 10 year old victim needed to seek an abortion after being raped by the accused perpetrator and is alleged to be the father of her child, too. The consequence of the Ohio abortion laws for child victims of sexual assault are notable because they are out of the ordinary, so the article may benefit from being rewritten from that viewpoint. Even though WP:SUSPECT counsels against writing a biography about criminal suspects because people accused of a crime are presumed innocent until found guilty by a judicial process, WP:NCRIME advises that notable crimes can be written about as a single event, but not as a biography of a living person notable for a single event. The title of this article names the accused, although misspelling his name, consequently the title could be considered having a non-neutral point of view as the title could be seen as prejudging any trial by connecting the accused with a crime. The current title therefore disrespects a person's right to a fair trial and could be a reason for deleting the title, but that is not cause for deleting the contents of the article. So the article should be renamed and rewritten with a different focus. Depending on the outcome of any trial, there is POTENTIAL for a future biographical article, because the accused might no longer be a low profile individual, but not just yet. Where this case will go in the future, nobody knows, but there are multiple possibilities. An alternative to keeping this article is to merge the content into an article like Abortion in Ohio, Abortion in Indiana or Abortion in the United States or even Sexual assault § United States. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPCRIME and as a biography of an arrest. The abortion controversy may be notable, but it's not even the primary focus of the article. There is nothing to salvage here, not even the article title. As for the above keep !vote, the speculative significance of the accused cannot overcome the clear BLP violation. The content to be merged is mostly about the suspect, not abortion. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: mmh... this seems to be developing into a story with nationwide coverage. there is the alleged crime itself, and then the issue of how abortion laws impacted the alleged victim's unwanted pregnancy. the story is made more notable by the fact that some journalists and public figures said they believed the story was a hoax meant to advance a pro-abortion agenda. the story is still developing. the article was probably started too soon, but i wouldnt be surprised if a more robust wiki article on this subject later emerges. some media coverage includes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/13/us/ohio-arrest-rape-abortion.html
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/an-abortion-story-too-good-to-confirm-joe-biden-ten-year-old-girl-indiana-ohio-caitlin-bernard-11657648618
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ohio-man-charged-with-raping-10-year-old-who-was-forced-cross-state-lines-2022-07-13/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-host-jesse-watters-suggested-10-year-old-rape-victims-abortion-was-a-hoax-before-arrest

Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what will more likely make this subject notable, is not the alleged crimeitself, but the doubts (see Washington Post article) surrounding the veracity of the case and the many political reactions related to the abortion debate that are stemming from it.Al83tito (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For one, whomever created this article in haste didn’t even bother to spell the suspect’s name right. Two, this is about a 10 year old child caught in the worst cross hairs anyone could imagine in American history. I do not think there should be an article about it without further details and commentary from the parents. Mind you, for weeks conservatives and a newspaper of record swore up and down this poor girl didn’t even exist. Trillfendi (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Separate discussion not needed An editor started a separate merge discussion. It is a duplication of this process and should be closed to prevent confusion. From WP:AFD: Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. Disambiguation pages are also nominated for deletion at AfD. Bruxton (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - The articles says "accused". The consequences of Ohio's strict abortion law causing the victim to travel to Indiana are significant, so the article can be rewritten to encompass this. Notable crimes can be written as a single event, and we can take the name of the accused out of the title and article completely (i.e. 2022 Ohio sexual assault case). Assuming the page can not be kept, it can be merged into Abortion in Ohio. If this were a BLP violation, the name of the suspect would have been removed immediately. The story and name of suspect have nationwide coverage, so removing the name of the suspect would not protect the suspect very much, if at all. People claiming that this is a hoax makes this more notable. Dave Yost doubted the assault, then rejoiced at the arrest. The spelling of the name of the accused, doubts of existence of the 10 year old girl and lack of comments from parents is completely irrelevant. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage is all over. Surprised that the article is so slim.--2601:C4:C300:A210:55FF:937B:37EC:3F69 (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or wait. The crime is horrid but not by itself unique, unfortunately. It does check a lot of other boxes, such as abortion debate, being politicized by the POTUS, by his opposition. The suspect appears to be an undocumented alien, and the doctor leaking the story is now facing a complaint for HIPAA violation. The content should be able to find other homes. Of course, we can also wait and see if anything more develops from it. Cobiexor (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage by many high quality sources: NYT CNN Reuters USA Today Axios Fox WaPo ABC Politico. And it's not just being covered because it's a gruesome (alleged) crime, this case is becoming a big part of the conversation around abortion law in the US. – Anne drew 15:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is currently titled "Gershon Fuentes sexual assault case". As such, this is (presumably) an article about the event / the crime ... not a bio of the Fuentes individual. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I read the news, the primary story is dealing with the victim dealing with the outcome of the sexual assault given recent changes in abortion laws, not on the accused perpetrator. Unfortunately, sexual assualts happen daily, even involving victims this young and we don't have articles on them all. At best, some of this content should be included in an article on changes in abortion laws and the effects of those changes, not as an article focused on the accused perpetrator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above ... this is an article about the event/crime ... not a bio of the perpetrator. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can’t call two sentences, one of which isn’t even about him, an article. Trillfendi (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how that addresses my point. It's obviously an article. That's why we are here, discussing an AFD ... that is, proposing an Article For Deletion. And, it's obviously a stub. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - WP:TOOSHORT. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article details it’s subject with facts, this is not even a stub. This was an attempt to the first to jump in on a political controversy, rather carelessly. In any other logical time, this would've been speedy deleted or PROD. Two sentences don't make an article. Trillfendi (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - WP:POTENTIAL. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Abortion in Ohio. This, as a standalone article, screams WP:1E to me; it fits far better in an article where it can be focused on in context of the ongoing abortion debate. A section in the Ohio article will reduce a focus on the accused (who is, it should be noted, still just accused, and not convicted) and puts the focus firmly on the broader political issues involved. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. I do not think that I have ever seen a Wikipedia article about a crime that incorporates the name of an accused but not convicted person into the title of the article. I believe that the very existence of an article with a title like this is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people. The article started at two sentences when nominated for AfD and it remains at two sentences six days later. I think that an acceptable article could be written about this controversy, but this isn't it and is not even the kernel of it. Cullen328 (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment almost too soon to see if this turns into something bigger or not. Could we draftify? Oaktree b (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - WP:RUSH. --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cullen328's points. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge I completely agree with the comment from Jax 0677 above. That one person was raped, and another accused of the rape, are not inherently notable events -- happens every day, alas. But this particular case is highly notable because it became such a political lightning rod. Supporters of reproductive rights pointed to the plight of a ten-year-old rape victim as an early indication of the consequences of the Dobbs decision. The response from prominent right-wingers was to deny that the girl even existed and to charge that the whole thing was a hoax. When the "hoax" narrative fell apart, the Attorney General of Indiana made threats against the doctor who had performed the abortion. All of that is notable and must be covered in Wikipedia somewhere. The name of the person who actually committed the rape is not important to that story, and the name of someone who at this stage is merely accused of it is even less so, but suppressing the incident entirely is not the answer. JamesMLane t c 15:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to reasoning by Liz and WP:PERPETRATOR. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. It would be hard to name this article appropriately, but it's not an appropriate title, and there's not much to the article than that. With all due respect, though this is a shocking and upsetting thing to read about, Wikipedia is not news and it is not clear to me what the long-term significance of this case is. We can cover this as part of another article if, for instance, it leads to legal change or contributes to a social movement. My condolences to the ten-year-old who has suffered so much from this horrible crime, so much more from the U.S. government's war on bodily autonomy, and even further as the result of this intense media scrutiny. — Bilorv (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - "2022 Ohio sexual assault case". --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Davidkhanian Mansion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Source for purported notability is the Navisargian book, which is self-published and therefore not reliable. agtx 17:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't immediately tell if this is explicitly on the Iran National Heritage List, but it appears significant for its architecture (evident already in photo of facade with columns, decorative motifs, and two-story porte-cochere), associations with important persons, and events having taken place within it, that it likely is on that list, and will meet general notability standards, and more. Unfortunately we in English Wikipedia have not much developed coverage of historic buildings and places in Iran; there was not yet even a Category:Historic buildings and structures in Iran until i created it just now. I will try to populate it. But this is like an AFD a year or two ago on a mansion in Delhi (i think), India, which dragged on until it was closed "Keep". There and here, we don't necessarily know the alternative names for the place in order run proper searches. Likely we won't have any participants who speak the relevant languages, or whi know much about built heritage in the country. This place is in Qazvin, formerly capital of the nation, and on historic Sepah Street. In the US it would be separately listed on the National Register of Historic Places and/or a significant contributing building in a NRHP-listed historic district. By the way, it is likely old enough to meet criteria of the National Heritage registry, i.e. have construction starting before 1784, end of a certain Iranian dynasty; all such are automatically deemed to be listed whether or not they show in our English Wikipedia list. Let's save time and simply "keep", though sure you can tag it to call for more sources and development. --Doncram (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Searching on "Davidkhanian building, Qazvin" yields this Teheran newspaper article that reports 11 new 2022 heritage listings in Qazmin, not naming them all but some being mansions, and with one less-impressive building having a photo displayed. This mansion is already or will be listed, IMHO. And there will exist plenty of sources about it, though much off-line and perhaps calling it different names (including perhaps with some part of name Alexander Khan Setkhanian). --Doncram (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question I see complaint in nomination re usage of source written by Navisargian. Perhaps that writer is not entirely independent or something. But is there any assertion of fact that is disputed, or questioned at all? Another source, not in article, is this January 2022 opinion/op-ed piece by W.D. Wright, titled "Between New York and Tehran", dated January 6, 2022, appearing in Armenian Weekly. W.D. Wright is a descendent. --Doncram (talk) 09:14, 4 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, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far it looks like a Keep, but it would be good to get more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the mansion is notable enough for its own article because when i searched it up multiple sources came up.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 17:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Broader participation need - 2 people is not enough to call it consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User:Doncram understands articles about historic buildings as well as any wikipedian, so I'm sure their instinct is first-rate. The two sources presented in their comments are from solid sources. More is surely available in Farsi. BusterD (talk) 00:32, 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 weak keep. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 07:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Midwestern U.S. floods and tornado outbreak of June 2021[edit]

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

Nominated on behalf of IP user 47.23.40.14 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

This should be deleted due to poor notability. Tornado outbreak is well below notable and floods also arent really notable, plus is only one line. Any salvageable content can go to Tornadoes of 2021#June 18-19, but I doubt even that is needed. 47.23.40.14 (talk)

Note: Prior notability discussions on articles's talk page. Also small discussion on AfD talk page in request of processing this nomination. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As stated on the various talk page discussions, (1): It needs to be expanded to include the hailstorm that occurred from this system, which NOAA reports caused $1.8 billion in damage. (2): It got accepted through AfC. (3): The article, without the hailstorm, already has 21 sources, so there should be no reason that notability should be questioned once it is included. I am also bringing up the point that the user who requested the AfD had only a handful of edits and attempted to discredit my reasons by bringing up edits I made over 6 months ago. That is just a little suspicious, especially given the recent WP Weather problems at Arbcom. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now:Article was just recently created. I'd say wait to give it chance it get more info for reference and notability. Saying an article should only have high notability and/or high amount of references to be created is limiting what articles can exist to what is well known and what already has all its info.--Halls4521 (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are we seriously assuming that the hailstorm, floods and tornadoes are all related? That needs a source to back it up or it’s WP:OR.12.119.134.66 (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a source, NOAA's billion-dollar disasters, which is linked in the article and where the $1.8 billion damage came from. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.weather.gov/ind/june18192021severe 96.91.3.165 (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is every storm report from NWS Indianapolis, so it does not represent the entire event, which spanned more than a single NWS office. NOAA Billion-Dollar Weather Events is the link which states “Ohio Valley Hail Storms”, “2021-06-17 to 2021-06-18”, $1.8. That is this storm system, so a storm system which caused $1,800,000,000 (2021 USD) in damage is 100% notable for a Wikipedia article. Important to note the Ohio Valley spans 12 states. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need a source to prove that the hailstorm was related to the floods, which it probably was but again, needs a source. Also, $1.8 billion isn’t automatically notable enough. We don’t have an article on the 2017 Colorado hailstorm despite causing $2.3 billion. All your arguments are hinging on one point that has been refuted. --96.91.3.165 (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know the 2017 Colorado hailstorm doesn't have an article. I will get to creating that actually. You do know Wikipedia isn't perfect right? We (some WikiProject of Weather members) just became aware in an entire different discussion that at least one violent tornado was completely forgotten from 1990, and it was one that an NWS office commented it could have been an EF5 on the EF-scale. The fact one topic doesn't have an article has 0 difference whether this should have an article or not. It just means no one had gotten around to creating it. Almost every billion-dollar disaster has some article or is apart of an article (ex: 8 of the 9 already listed for 2022 have articles.) As I stated below, I will 100% be recreating this article if it is deleted, so honestly, the AfD is just preventing WP:FIXIT from being able to happen with useless debates. I haven't seen a single actual reason why this is not directly notable for Wikipedia, rather, that the article just shouldn't exist. I would recommend you narrow your choice down to whether (1): $1.8 billion hailstorm just isn't notable for Wikipedia, which could spire to say some other weather disasters that caused less damage (like the Tornado outbreak of March 29–31, 2022 which caused $500 million less in damage than this hailstorm in question) OR (2) whether you just don't want this article in mainspace talking about tornadoes instead of the hailstorm, which just hasn't been added in yet because of this long and painful AfD debate. Please let me know which it is. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The tornado outbreak from March is different because it had over 70 tornadoes and caused fatalities. If notability can be demonstrated, it can be kept. However, as it is, it simply cannot stand. This article is such a mess that it should be WP:TNT. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge to Tornadoes of 2021#June 18-19, but do not keep. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just copy/pasted this into a userpage draft and if this is deleted, I plan to rework the article to make sure it includes the hailstorm then resubmit through AfC. Knowing it was accepted the first time, there is no reason it would not be again, so just saying this AfD will do nothing in the long run but prevent a WP:FIXIT as suggested in my previous comments. Man, I seem to not get a break from people always calling out my past from over a year ago, but either way, the nominator was/is most likely a troll from my past since one of their first edits was pulling up my past as a way to discredit my comments and they only have ever edited on the day this was nominated. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted for broader participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 17:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:27, 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 Draftify.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keystone Party of Manitoba[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable political party, fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism, Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Curbon7 (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep: The citations I found ([52], [53], [54], [55], [56]) provide a fair amount of significant coverage, particularly for a newly formed (and verifiably registered) party.Sal2100 (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Changing above !vote based on arguments/comments made by Femke and Curbon7 below. The currently existing sources are a good start, but more WP:RS-based coverage is needed to pass WP:NORG and/or WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Draftify Sources 1, 2 and 4 mostly based on quotes, and I don't think there is enough independent material to contribute towards notability. Source 3 and 5 are very short and contain mostly information about the system of registering rather than the party. Seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Femke (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This political party will make an important impact in the 2023 election. They are one of two right wing parties in Manitoba and the other one is struggling with its popularity. this party will grow and make an impact. the article should not be deleted as more news articles have come out on this topic within the last 7 days of this comment MBpoliticsGUY (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link those showing the ones that are independent, significant, secondary and reliable? If those sources don't exist yet, but will likely exist in the future, we can WP:draftify the article, and move it back into mainspace when it has become WP:notable. Note that Wikipedia is no WP:CRYSTALBALL. Femke (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think draftification is a good alternative here. Curbon7 (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears notable based on its recognition as a provincial party and coverage in a major paper. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bookworm857158367: Would you be willing to explain how the coverage is independent of the subject? I don't think recognition has any bearing on notability. Thanks, Femke (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This political party will make an important impact in the 2023 election. They are one of two right wing parties in Manitoba and the other one is struggling with its popularity. this party will grow and make an impact. the article should not be deleted as more news articles have come out on this topic within the last 7 days of this comment. this article must remain up and be improved upon MBpoliticsGUY (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTALBALL. Curbon7 (talk) 16:08, 22 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!} 18:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add as much as i could using the parties website, social media, CBC reports, and stories from Manitobans Newspapers. I listed 9 new sources of information, but it would appear someone took it all down. There is a lot of information about this party, its odd that people are unwilling to add more to this article. there are defunct parties in Manitoba with less information available, yet have better articles than Keystone. very strange MBpoliticsGUY (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it was necessary to remove all of this information, but most of it was not appropriate. The WP:ABOUTSELF policy specifies that articles should not be based primarily on sources like own websites and social media. Femke (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as WP:TOOSOON, topic as it stands fail WP:NORG. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:33, 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 Draftify.. Going with those coming late to the discussion and also because the nominator changed to supporting draftification. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dikko Umaru Radda[edit]

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

Future political candidate so may be notable at some point, but not at the moment. Mccapra (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep he is partially notable because he has covered some media coverage. Gartuwaso (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wildly misses the mark for meeting WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ — Radda served as the chairman /DG/CEO of SMEDAN, which is a government-owned national organisation which means he meets WP:NPOL#1. Promotional? Maybe. Needs deleting? Deleting is not clean up. Best, RB ^{Talk to the Beans?} 11:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are appointed government offices viewed the same way as elected offices under NPOL? I'm not sure that this is a correct interpretation of NPOL.4meter4 (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it depends. There is precedent for accepting appointed senators and state senators under dictatorships. However senior civil servants are a bit like CEOs. Nobody gets an article just because they’ve run a large regional company. Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 2 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!} 23:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 02:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — He was until recently the head of a fairly important government agency and only raised in notability as a gubernatorial candidate. Plus plenty of media coverage. Watercheetah99 (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First keep submission argues "partial" notability". There is no such thing. One either meets the standard for notability or they do not. Meeting NPOL #1 is not satisfied merely through appointment, coverage must also follow. Also, a government agency does not meet this criteria? This is a serious misapplication of the criteria which states "The person has been elected, appointed, or otherwise selected to be the head of state or government in any country". The subject has not. There is no meeting NPOL here and general notability also not established. First source is not independent, as it is a profile by his institution. Second source is primary. Third is trivial rehashing of some remarks made and does not address subject in detail. Fourth is trivial. Fifth also. No substantiated claim to notability can be made. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails BASIC. ––FormalDude talk 14:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please provide the sources if those exist or back your vote with policies
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable politician. Katsina State has 5.8 million inhabitants. For context, being the APC nominee for governor in Katsina is like being the Republican nominee for governor of Alabama. --Soman (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, the topic still fails WP:NPOL. They'll be notable if they're elected, but for now it's too soon. ––FormalDude talk 21:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Soman if the republican nominee for governor of Alabama had insufficient coverage to meet notability guidelines their article would likely be deleted too. Without proper sources, one cannot create a good article without engaging in original research. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I don't think the role at SMEDAN is the sort of political position that NPOL applies to, per above. Whether the available sourcing is adequate is a closer call, but at the moment Radda doesn't quite seem to meet the GNG/WP:BASIC: this article from Leadership has some non-trivial coverage, but most of what I'm seeing isn't in-depth or lacks independence. That being said, he'll certainly met NPOL crit. 1 if elected governor (which seems reasonably likely), and additional sourcing may appear in the near future as the campaign continues. In other words, it's a case of TOOSOON, and draftifying is generally the best response in these sorts of situations as it ensures that the article can be restored easily if and when the subject crosses the notability threshold. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good course of action. Mccapra (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I'm good with re-drafting this and looking for coverage in the upcoming election. Based on presented sources it's slightly short of NOTE but I see wisdom in going along with User:Extraordinary Writ's suggestion. BusterD (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can say notability exist per references from independent reliable sources, moreover, Umar Dikko Radda is contesting for Governatorial election in Katsina State, aired in different publications and newspapers, if deleted the articles will surely be created by some one in the near future. An@ss_koko^{(speak up)} 11:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify As per Extraordinary Writ. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:42, 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 Draftify. General agreement that the article needs more work and sources with significant coverage in order to meet notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 07:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Ahmed[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. HeinzMaster (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He has a Wisden obituary, which is usually a sign that there is much more coverage available. It's not cited, and I won't be able to add it today, but it's a good indicator that if we were able to access sources - and we're almost totally reliant on printed sources for the era in which the bloke played - that we'd find scads. The commonality of the name and the era and where he played means it looks as if it's difficult to find early accessible internet sources however, which is a shame as with a career that long we'd find a bunch. I'm sure people will object to a redirect for various reasons, but I'm not sure what else we'll be able to do here - I guess a redirect to whichever team he played more most frequently in the Ranji would be best, unless any India-based editors can find more in paper archives or in local non-English language sources. I'll need access to CricketArchive to figure out which that is though. It would be a shame to lose an article about an obviously notable non-white, non-anglophone person however. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we were looking at a redirect here, the List of Hyderabad cricketers would be the best choice - that's the team he played much more frequently for. The list needs updating at some point as well. I am minded towards keeping based on the Wisden obit though. They really don't give those away these days. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Played in 61 first-class matches, which makes the nomination quite frankly odd. Given the amount of matches he played in, there is undoubtedly coverage in print media from the era. He was afforded an obituary by Wisden, which shows his notability as a cricketer. Passes WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this claimed likely existence of sources sufficient to meet WP:NRV which requires "verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability"?

Where is this obituary? If you look up his name along with wisden obituary, nothing shows up, neither does anything on Wisden page. Participation in some matches doesn't make you notable nor pass WP:GNG [57] HeinzMaster (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's here. You'll notice the different way the name is transliterated. You might want to double check if there are any other versions of the name - this is very common for names from the subcontinent and can cause all sorts of problems when you're looking for references. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per StickyWicket. St Anselm (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that there is the reasonable assumption that this player should pass WP:GNG in offline coverage and non-English language coverage with the career he had and with the obituary that we already have as well. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify due to lack of significant coverage. Passing NCRIC does not mean that notability is presumed; that SNG merely tells us that SIGCOV is likely to exist. The probable existence of sources is not enough, they actually need to be presented here and at least one needs to be added to the article per NSPORTS. The obituary is routine and not sufficient to meet SIGCOV. I propose draftification instead of outright deletion to give folks time to add these sources so that the article might be saved. –dlthewave ☎ 12:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever opinion you might be of about other things, a Wisden obituary is not in any way routine. They don't give them away in any sense and tonnes of well known players don't get one. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "routine" wasn't the right word, but that very short obituary really isn't the type of in-depth writing that would contribute to SIGCOV. The fact that Wisden is selective about who gets an obituary doesn't mean that the person is necessarily notable by Wikipedia's standards. Again, we need SIGCOV sourcing to be present in the article in order to keep it per WP:SPORTBASIC. –dlthewave ☎ 15:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a jolly good indicator that much more writing about the person is likely to exist though - because of the selective nature. I mean, if we really have to have any form of sports notability guideline at all - and I'm not at all sure that any of them serve any practical purpose at all right now - then "got a Wisden obituary" is probably about the level to have them at. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I !voted to draftify instead of delete so that sources can eventually be added if they are found. We do in fact have a sports notability guideline and it doesn't mention Wisden obituaries or anything similar; you might consider opening an RfC if you'd like to add this, however it would be on a "sources are likely to exist" basis. The fact is that our guidelines don't presume notability in situations like this, and for sports figures community consensus is that sources actually have to be found and added to the article. This wouldn't even pass the AfC process as is. –dlthewave ☎ 22:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more participation needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Blue Square Thing: if a high probability exists of additional sources that can solidify notability, it's better to work on the article rather than delete it. That seems to be the case here. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Dlthewave. A three-sentence obituary is just not SIGCOV no matter who wrote it. If it's truly "indicative" of further sources existing, then six months of incubation should be sufficient to find it. NSPORT is very clear that a source of SIGCOV must be in the article, and since that is not forthcoming the article currently fails our guidelines and should not be kept in mainspace. JoelleJay (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And frankly, that goes against WP:NEXIST, which should take precedence. St Anselm (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I have to agree with Dlthewave and JoelleJay. In its current form, the article does not pass the guidelines and is very limited. However, other users have insisted that offline coverage and non-English language coverage is likely to exist, which I do not doubt. Draftify will give users time to find, improve and expand the article, and if necessary, we can review the article again at some point in the future. Unfortunately, if it isn’t in the article and is only likely to exist, we cannot keep the article going forward, but Draftify will give users time to save the article. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Wisden entry indicates that notability is possible, however the sources don't currently establish that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:58, 31 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) 19:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shazia Wajahat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

TV producer. Fails WP:GNG, no independent, significant coverage. She did not, in fact, win a Hum Award, the film did. Producer, even of notable productions, is not notable. Sourcing is iffy, notability is not inherited from husband. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE and SALT as the page recreated after first AFD delete, and for using ~~fake~~ misleading citation in "She has won Hum Award for Best Television Film for producing Main Kukkoo Aur Woh." The citation of DAWN, is ~~fake~~ misleading. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 11:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Above-mentioned reference from Dawn (newspaper) is CERTAINLY not fake!!! Images website is part of Dawn Group of Newspapers for sure. I have been using references here on Wikipedia from Dawn newspaper since 2012. It may be confusing, I admit, but if one looks closely at the URL PATH ... https://images.dawn.com , it definitely contains the name of the Dawn newspaper in it and the other reference from Dawn newspaper is also legitimate. The article already has plenty of newspaper references. Regards Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does this https://www.dawn.com/news/1175086 page even have a single word about the subject person? Show us. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 13:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT But first what about you making a baseless sweeping statement above about both of them being FAKE Dawn newspaper websites? Where did you get that? Let's get real here, this is an encyclopedia and let's both focus on the above article's merits. If one of the 10 references added by the original editors (I personally have never edited this article) is not specific enough, that one reference can be very easily taken out and this article trimmed down. All I am hoping and expecting here on this AfD forum is that this article be given fair consideration per Wikipedia guidelines and policy...Thanks Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ngrewal1 I said the citation is ~~fake~~ misleading, not DAWN is fake. Kindly get the point. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 04:12, 9 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 06:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly recognised woman producer in Pakistan (eg features on panel of leading Pakistani film industry representatives, producer of one of the leading series of 2021). Plaintiff in the May 2022 Sindh High Court decision requiring 85% of screening time to be devoted to Pakistani films. FWIW the citation above is not fake, although it's understandable that only a precursory glance would lead one to think it might be. The linked article includes: "Best Telefilm: Main Cuckoo Aur Woh by Showcase Communication" ... Showcase Communication being Shazia Wajahat's production company. No doubt more even material available in Urdu. Passes the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All three refs passed mention only. That doesn't satisfy the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 06:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please back your vote with the policies
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers,, and Asia. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 16:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 08:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:PRODUCER criteria 3, as I see she has produced at least 3 notable films or TV shows that have their own wikipedia article. CT55555 (talk)
Keep – qualifies WP:PRODUCER, with quite a few notable works. Fact of her being well known producer in the Pakistani film industry, gives strong indications of her qualifying WP:BASIC as well. Was able to find these sources to support these claims [58], [59] and [60]. Thanks AHatd (talk) 02:51, 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 delete. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FanCode[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. WP:GNG not met Alphaonekannan (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Alphaonekannan (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Enough coverage from multiple reliable sources such as TOI, The Hindu, Forbes etc. It indicates that the subject has received substantial independent media coverage, meeting key requirements of WP: NCORP. Lorenzo the great (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)</> — Lorenzo the great (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:SIGCOV per the significant mainstream coverage from the sources. Most of the sources are regarded as reliable and collectively appear to meet the criteria for notability.Akevsharma (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing but WP:MILL, PR spam and blackhat SEO. PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Funding rounds, funding rounds, announcements and funding rounds. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have a look at the source analysis table.

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Akevsharma
https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/dream11-launches-ad-free-multi-sport-aggregator-platform-fancode-119042500907_1.html	Major national business daily	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.forbesindia.com/amp/article/take-one-big-story-of-the-day/how-fancode-is-building-a-onestop-destination-for-sports-lovers/76425/1	Written by Forbes staff which is reliable under WP:FORBES	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/dream11-launches-sports-aggregator-platform-fancode/articleshow/69045506.cms	The source is the third largest national newspaper by circulation	Discuss the subject briefly, which count towards GNG	✔ Yes
https://m.economictimes.com/news/sports/dream11-launches-multi-sports-aggregator-platform-fancode/amp_articleshow/69042709.cms	Major business focused national daily	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

The sources are reliable comprehensive, independent, and they meet the criteria both for WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH]. Akevsharma (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe that WP:CORPDEPTH is met and this goes well beyond the routine coverage based on the source analysis done by Akevsharma. It is indeed difficult to accept that a company with 50 million customers falls under WP:MILL. How is it even possible that these sources published by the leading national medias falls under PR spam? Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 06:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NCORP's WP:ORGIND defines "Independent Content" and almost all of the sources in the article and above are based on interviews and information provided by the company and their execs. None of that is "Independent Content" when it is simply repeating information created and put out by the company. Saying "meets CORPDEPTH" doesn't amount to meeting NCORP if the in-depth information was provided by the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing - your thoughts about this article and FanCode's involvement in that fake tournament. Forgive my suspicions – but claims of 50 million customers when the published number is 20 million customers and a $50 million investment makes me wonder, as does the fact that the nom +2 socks were recently discovered. I don't think WP should be used to promote startups or the shady activity surrounding it, so KUDOS to Girth Summit for his diligence in catching it. Atsme 💬 📧 12:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a source to assist in establishing notability? There's no in-depth details about the company in the article so fails CORPDEPTH. Not sure what you mean by the company's "involvement" in the fake tourney - they were tricked/scammed. Happens to a lot of companies. You also mention that you don't think WP should be used to "promote" companies - absolutely, WP is not a platform for promotion of any company or topic. Again though, I'm not seeing any reason to side-swipe the topic company over this. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not a reliable source (WP:TOI) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: According to Akevsharma's detailed review of the sources above, which points out the reliable significant media coverage. I agree some of them are are mainly interviews, but do not agree to the argument that these are not independent sources. WP:INDEPENDENT describes that a third-party source is independent if they are unaffiliated with the subject. These sources are published by some third parties with original analysis from editors who have no connection with this company. This makes them independent. Hence this meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. ChristinaNY (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Hey ChristinaNY, whay are you looking at WP:INDEPENDENT when NCORP is the applicable guideline? Check out WP:ORGIND which also include a definition for "Independent Content" as original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. You say that the sources contain "original analysis" from editors who have no connection with the company. Can you please point to a source/paragraph which you say is "original analysis"? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Majority of these sources provide detailed analysis along with statements from some interviews. How does this not make it an independent source.? A source is independent if it contain independent analysis and fact-checking. I'm clearly seeing that here. Some of these sources which included pieces from some interviews doesn't change the fact that they are independent. Highking probably only saw the interview part in it and missed the rest. Akevsharma (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That source analysis is deeply flawed. Look at the Business Standard article - the first in that analysis - it doesn't even have a byline! BS Staff is common practice as a byline to give to press handouts and that is certainly what we have here - press handout picture and clearly company announcement, totally stood up on officials from the company making claims about the company. That's the problem with the sourcing in this article - it cutteth not the mustard. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The title of some citations may give the impression that its just an announcement by the company. But many of them contains independent analysis and fact-checking. I have only attached four sources which is generally considered reliable. Other sources are also there in the article that gives more in-depth coverage. Akevsharma (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to one of the sources and the paragraph number that you believe contains independent analysis and fact-checking. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Sources The four sources above all relate to the topic company launching their FanCode platform. Three of the sources refer to the announcement. All are dated 25th April. All contain the same facts and information albeit with slightly different wording. Similar articles using the same phrases and wording also appeared in order publications/websites such as animationxpress, Gutshot Magazine and hastalamotion. I'm finding it difficult to understand how on earth anyone thinks all of these regurgitated company announcements are "Independent Content" with claims that they contain independent/original analysis and fact-checking. The remaining source from Forbes India is entirely based on an interview with the co-founders and information provided by the company. There are supplementary comments about the overall streaming market from Raghav Anand of EY but he doesn't say anything about the topic company. Everything else might be said to meet CORPDEPTH but since it does not contain an iota of "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with PRAXIDICAE, and will add that I'm surprised this article wasn't a G11. WP is being inundated with these types of submissions. Look at the article and the sources - the bulk of cited sources are nothing more than marketing promotion under a thin veil. For example, read the Forbes India (updated May 30, 2022) source's headline: How FanCode is building a one-stop destination for sports lovers - the source writes about this start-up company (2019) and new software - And that’s exactly what the FanCode founders—Yannick Colaco and Prasana Krishnan—have set out to do: Build a digital destination for sports fans. It's unproven hype & marketing at this point in time, WP:CRYSTAL. It's a step beyond vaporware, so let it incubate and when it becomes notable and widespread beyond marketing hype, we can consider inclusion. Atsme 💬 📧 14:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Atsme for this better picture regarding Forbes. The first thing I noticed was this source from Forbes. I didnt had a second thought because Forbes (written by its staff) is considered a reliable source in enwiki. Now I understood how manipulating these sometimes can be. WP:CORPDEPTH is very tricky and confusing in may aspcets. HighKing, I have couple of question for you. I had read somewhere that notability can be established by combining the sources to get SIGCOV. Is'nt that applicable here? The second one is regarding WP:GNG. If a topic meets GNG, does it need to meet SNG too? Take this as an example itself. I think notability might be bordeline looking upon GNG. Regarding CORPDEPTH, Im having some second thoughts after seeing Atsme's opinion. Let me go through some past lengthy AFD after which I will consider changing my opinion. Meanwhile, I hope Highking can give me a clear picture for me. Akevsharma (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akevsharma, you asked two questions - first one, if notability can be established by combining sources. As per WP:SIRS: Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below .... Second one, is it an either/or situation for GNG *or* SNG. Some editors (often after it has been shown that a topic fails an SNG :-) argue that because WP:N says a topic is notable if it meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right, this allows for an interpretation whereby a topic may fail an appropriate SNG but still be notable because it "passes GNG". When it comes to NCORP though, NCORP doesn't actually add or remove anything from GNG but provides clarification and examples and urges editors to apply a strict interpretation on sourcing. I would wager that when you say "borderline looking upon GNG", you are in effect attempting to apply a wooly interpretation of "Independent of the subject" and in effect dilute or even exclude the ORGIND "Independent Content" clarification .. as a guess. In general, consensus is that NCORP (and GNG) can be ignored as per WP:IAR in exceptional circumstances - I don't think this is one of those. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note Two of the accounts that have !voted keep are in fact socks of the nominator. I have struck through their comments. Don't ask me why they are socking to oppose their own nomination. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SERIESA. The source assessment table prepared by User:Akevsharma is erroneous; the Forbes India article is not independent because it relies pretty much exclusively on the company's founders for information. The Times of India article is the same; it's essentially a press release. FalconK (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A sports related company that is often in the news and seems to have decent coverage in news sources including Hindi publications which nobody has mentioned here. Appears to pass basic WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Some citations includes quotes from people related with the company, but there is enough independent coverage to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and there is enough depth of coverage. Silentone1995 (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources to meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Forbes has ample coverage. Wikipedia:Notability clearly states you have to pass either the general notability guidelines or one of the subject specific guidelines, not both.202.140.48.42 (talk) 08:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes is, for lack of a better word garbage. It isn't an RS. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Have got reliable and independent source which inreturn helps to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV Poppified ^talk 17:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every source is based on routine company announcements or otherwise not independent. It's telling that nobody has been able to answer the question posed above: Please point to one of the sources and the paragraph number that you believe contains independent analysis and fact-checking * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attaching one of the few sources and the fact checking in it [61]. As part of its sports data and statistics offering, FanCode provides access to information and data on sports leagues, teams and players for sports fans and fantasy sports users. This includes match previews, venue details, pitch reports, weather forecasts, player performances and post-match analysis. It also has about 20 experts on-board across sports categories to provide data and predictions through a detailed analysis of players and teams, supplemented by video representation, infographics, and even blogs as official authors. Since the launch in 2019, FanCode claims to garner over 15 million users. It has launched interactive live streaming of matches with multimedia commentary, live scores, news on the sports industry across the globe, bite-sized video content like match highlight packages, chat shows with sports personalities in a new-age format, fantasy sports research and expert opinions. Here is one hindi sources of the many [62].Silentone1995 (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. After re-reviewing my AfD nomination, making new google searches and what not, I noticed Garry has received a decent amount of coverage in Irish media that GNG is met in my opinion. (non-admin closure) ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 01:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Garry[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA. Page was created under the old guidelines that were abolished, participation based criteria was removed and we can't pretend like it didn't happen. Otherwise Garry fails the other criteria, his highest ranking by FightMatrix is 99th, which is far short of the top 10. Also never appeared in Sherdog's top 10. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 05:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before starting to nominate pages for deletion, let's at least try to get new guidelines that avoid the issue of participation, be it maybe having an X amount of fights won, or expanding the ranking eligibility. I'll start a discussion on the notability page HeinzMaster (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tons of coverage on Ian Garry [63][64][65][66] HeinzMaster (talk) 01:37, 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!} 07:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I wouldn't trust The Sun, the other three articles shared above demonstrate significant coverage on Garry. NemesisAT (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the criteria in WP:NMMA and there is no significant coverage in the sources. The pre-fight/press conferences/announcement reports and post-fight reports do not provide significant coverage. The remaining articles are celebrity pieces about pregnancies and engagements, or very lightweight reviews of his fights so far. TigerShark (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:19, 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. The arguments in favour of deletion centre around the article failing NCORP (which I believe is the correct SNG, as the article clearly talks about the "brand" and "founding" of the organisation, rather than being limited to the product) and being overly promotional, whereas the arguments put forward in favour of keeping largely only state that the app is "relevant" and that it has "been in the media". Merely being relevant or having a certain number of downloads does not make a subject notable. firefly ( t · c ) 16:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Pro[edit]

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

Discovered this in NPP. Non-notable prayer app, written like an advertisement (see the paid contributions tag). Was somehow accepted by an AfC reviewer. Not convinced by the sources linked on the talk page by the AfC reviewer. I do not think they provide sufficient significant coverage to establish notability. Notice that the name of the account which created this article is the same as the name of the company which owns the app. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete:~~ Sourcing is not reliable. Of the first four, there are two trivial mentions, one regurgitated press release from a niche industry publication and one interview-based article. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sure let me assist you with alleviate the concerns brought forth.

The account under which I had initially started was when I was new to writing in for wiki. So, I had created the username under the company name thinking it needed to be relevant. Than, somehow there was a paid contribution tag that came about with more rigorous guidelines. I had followed through with the guidelines after which.

The initial comments was that it was advertisement like. I had eventually removed anything that made it feel that way. There is no part of being listed on wikipedia that is meant for any advertisement whatsoever. So, I have no issues deleting or removing anything that is not within guidelines. I will go ahead and further edit the article with anything that feels as such.

I understand the portion about the sources being not relevant enough. As such, I will edit the sources and the portions of the article that are referring to that portion.

I am here to abide by the guidelines. I do wish to author more articles and this is a learning platform and these learning moments are great.

Do let me know if there is anything else besides these that needs changes. Bitsmedia (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should I also, remove the whole portion on features as I am citing the muslim Pro website itself. There is no where else that speaks of feautres. I am good to remove it if it is not within guidelines as that portion might seem very advertorial. Bitsmedia (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I accepted this draft at AfC based on coverage in the following sources: [67], [68], [69]. In sum, I think this provides a reasonable case for notability. ~Kvng (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Relevant culture-related app which is actually notable due to number of downloads and users. HomemadePotato (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources, not how many people downloaded the app. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the company has been in the media(aljazeera, Vice, etc ..) for selling location user data to US military LaMèreVeille (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question does not constitute significant coverage to an extent that it meets WP:NCORP. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The articles content is written in a way to promote the app, violating WP:PROMO. The page merely discusses the apps features and the reception subsection is just references to generic ratings. The parent company and affiliated managers have no notability - WP:NCORP. ElderZamzam (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this is a relevant religious and culture-related app. Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources, not on our personal opinions as to if the app is "relevant". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm repealing my delete vote, not because I think the material is particularly worthy or the sources fantastic, but in appreciation of the fairly large scale of this enterprise, the likelihood of much better coverage in foreign language sources, and the very real prospect that this enterprise is only set to grow and deleting the article would be an exercise in futility that would only presage its recreation at a later date. Since delete is not a likely outcome here in any case, best to speedy keep and end the expenditure of community time on the subject.Iskandar323 (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Iskandar323 You took the right decision. This is large scale of this enterprise.

I appreciate your decision. Kyle154 (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing a pass of WP:NCORP here. Coverage of Muslim Pro's selling customer data doesn't contribute to NCORP unless they describe the company in detail, which I'm not seeing in any of [70], [71], etc. There's CEO interviews like [72], [73], but these don't count toward NCORP. Now, foreign-language sources... I'm afraid I can't help there. But I'd err on the side of deletion. Ovinus (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about a product, not the company. WP:NPRODUCT, not the more stringent WP:NCORP, should be applied. ~Kvng (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, there are a whole four paragraphs in the Vice article on how the app's data is being hoodwinked. That's also a sign of balance in the sourcing. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Keep voters need to understand this article and the AFD is not a reflection on a religion. This app may be important to many follows of Islam. Deleting the article does not make the app irrelevant to its users, or diminish its importance to Islam and its followers. The article subject simply does not meet NCORP as coverage while there, is not significant. If this is a super important app to followers of Islam, find an appropriate article and add a sentence or two on the app there in a neutral way. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Passing GNG or NCORP?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As written, the article is about a corporate entity, not just a product (to the extent that that hair can even be split). A piece of software does not autonomously decide to "collaborate with UNICEF", for example. Accordingly, the notability guideline for corporations applies. Muslim Pro is only one of the apps implicated in data harvesting; Others include a Muslim dating app, a popular Craigslist app, an app for following storms, and a "level" app that can be used to help, for example, install shelves in a bedroom, as the Vice article says. There's enough to warrant mention in an article covering that practice, but the available sourcing doesn't warrant a stand-alone page, and the existing content is promotional. XOR'easter (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lean delete (again): Clearly a speedy resolution of this was wishful thinking. Having attempted a bit of editing, the combination of weak sources and advert-like writing is a bit grim. This AfD also does not seem to have encouraged any of those voting keep to actually go out there and find better sourcing, which does not bode particularly well for the prospect of any near-term improvement of the content. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMO, does not meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:54, 31 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kissidougou Ethnology Museum[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Could not find any coverage except a listing in gbooks in Museums of the World directory. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Other than trivial mentions, this doesn't meet GNG and should be deleted. VickKiang (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this 2011-created article and merge 2013-created Musée Préfectoral de Kissidougou into this article, if it can be confirmed these are the same place. Same city, both largely about masks. The 2013 article has two references. In general, museums are going to be notable (see truly excellent essay wp:ITSAMUSEUM). But sometimes it is hard to figure out alternative names of them, in different languages, to get to online and offline information about them. --Doncram (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit to the latter article. There is also a published journal article available at JSTOR which might cover it somewhat. I don't have access to that article, but the Google blurb reads: "Publics des musees africains by R Suteau · 1999 · Cited by 2 — rekore et de Kissidougou et de prospection sur les conditions de creation d'un musee prefectoral et ethnographique 'a Macenta >>30. Au cours de ". --Doncram (talk) 17:55, 10 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!} 03:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’ve read the JSTOR article which does mention the museum in Kissidougou but it’s only a passing mention, so no help with notability. On the other hand this is a public museum in a remote area of a country with low literacy and little tourism so I would not expect much coverage. Mccapra (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’ve added another ref which is only to a directory but a Google books search shows that this museum has appeared in many directories and is mentioned in many specialist art publications. It’s not what we’d normally look for to demonstrate notability but given the context I think it’s sufficient. Mccapra (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I still support delete, a couple of trivial mentions aren't enough IMO to show notability (GNG probably?) If possible, could some directories be added? Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 23:44, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bran mac Finsnechta[edit]

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

Searching finds nothing but WP mirrors, and the List of kings of Leinster does not include him. Unsourced and possibly a hoax. Mangoe (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a Google book search for this name suggests some uncertainty among historians about who was who in ancient Leinster and who was son of who, but nobody of this exact name. Could be OR or a misreading of sources but I don’t see any basis for keeping this at the moment. Mccapra (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack sources that confirm this person clearly existed. If I am reading the Kings of Leinster article right, he would have lived in the 5th century. I understand the desire to cover things in the far past well, but we have to ground such coverage in reliable sources, which are lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barrett Blade[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: the current sources are database entries, interviews, and award rosters. Industry awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for better sources and found only trivial coverage and passing mentions. Cheers, gnu 57 17:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Sexuality and gender. gnu 57 17:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:30, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Kaushik[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NACTOR. References are primary, early stage PR, puff pieces. Note tag added several weeks ago. scope_creep^Talk 17:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and also she doesn't have single notable award like the Indian Television Academy Awards or the Gold Awards meant for TV actors to remain in main space thus failing WP:GNG.Pri2000 (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Based on my review of sources in the article and an online search, it appears that in addition to recurring roles, she has a significant role in the notable production Pandya Store, but this is not sufficient to support WP:NACTOR notability, and the recent tabloid-style press about her personal life does not appear sufficient to support WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She is a notable actress and had signifcant roles in Dhhai Kilo Prem, Kahaan Hum Kahaan Tum and now in Pandya Store. She has also been nominated in 2022's Gold Awards Best Supporting Actress Category. Also, all the sources mentioned on the page are reliable sources.Jha09
NOTE: Fan users manipulated both her and Pandya Store articles in such a way by adding Awards and Nominations category that it looks like they were really Nominated for Gold Awards 2022 but didn't won it in result section. But the ceremony hasn't happened till now and our voting process is happening on official website. So it was manipulated in such a manner that the award ceremony has happened and the actress pass WP:GNG by getting Nominated in that award. All those edits from both articles have been reverted right now as it was irrelevant to add them at this point.Pri2000 (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting nominated does make you pass WP:GNG. There is must coverage per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. scope_creep^Talk 11:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like WP:TOOSOON, not a great deal has changed since the last AFD. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE She also has a Gold Awards nomination to her credit. Thus she passes WP:GNG.

Nomination isn't a pass for WP:GNG. scope_creep^Talk 06:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not much WP:SIGCOV & WP:NACTOR, no multiple lead roles. There is no notable awards.MickeyMouse143 (talk) 09:42, 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 redirect to Alia Shawkat. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Cactus Cove[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article about a short film, not making a strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. As usual, we don't always want an article about every single film that exists -- we only want articles about films that can be properly referenced as having a credible notability claim, such as notable film awards (which is not the same thing as all film awards) and/or critical attention from reputable film critics in real media. But the only notability claim being attempted here is awards from small-fry film festivals that aren't being properly sourced to demonstrate that they're seen as notable awards in the first place, which isn't enough. We're looking for major film festivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin, Toronto or Sundance when it comes to film festival awards, not the "Angelus Awards Student Film Festival". Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Albeit a short film, this was Alia Shawkat's first starring role, and is thus a major part of her career. If others think the film does not meet notability then, instead of deleting, redirect to Alia Shawkat. --Bensin (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced films don't get notability freebies just because of who happened to be in them. The notability test requires the film to be the subject of media coverage, and who was or wasn't in the cast cannot exempt a film from having to have sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:Notability (film), one inclusion criterion to consider is "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." That's why I mentioned that is was a major part of Shawkat's career. The requirement for sourcing has not been disputed. --Bensin (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have no issue with this redirecting to Shawkat's article, however the film itself just isn't notable. The catch with the part of NFILM mentioned above is that there would need to be coverage to show that this is actually a major part of their career. There would need to be sourcing that discusses the film in relation to Shawkat, Shawkat herself discussing the film, and so on. The film is listed as part of her filmography, but there's no mention of this being a landmark role for her. She doesn't really discuss it, nor is it really covered in any of the books or articles out there about Shawkat. There's no mention of it being responsible for launching her career, nor really anything at all. This part of NFILM is meant to cover things like Jim Carrey's Rubberface, Tom Hanks's Mazes and Monsters and Sandra Bullock's Hangmen (film), films that haven't gotten a huge amount of coverage but are frequently mentioned as some of their early roles, particularly Mazes and Monsters. I suppose another unsaid thing is that to give notability by association the actor would have to be extremely notable, as the more notable an actor is, the more coverage there would be of them and thus the more likely it would be that they would start talking about their first major roles. I just don't see this being the case here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to harsh a buzz here, just that I don't see this being a super major part of her career. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK! I see your point. I am fine with redirecting to the article about Shawkat. --Bensin (talk) 19:35, 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 speedy deleted under CSD G5 by Ponyo on 22 July 2022. (non-admin closure) – NJD-DE (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Izin Hash[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable actor with a single role and little to no coverage, definitely too soon. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note Deleted per WP:CSD#G5 and recreated as a protected redirect.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:10, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Television[edit]

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

I'm able to find mentions of some of their shows, but no sourcing at the level that would approach WP:CORP for information about ATV Star Mississippi 16:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Organizations, and Companies. Star Mississippi 16:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything; it definitely fails WP:NCORP. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 20:12, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Otago Rambler[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG and NMUSIC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul W (talk • contribs) 15:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See the undeletion request from Paora who offered a book citation, but did not follow up adding that to the article after undeletion. Jay 17:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have added reference and expanded per undeletion request. Wilson is a significant figure in New Zealand music history, as both a singer and songwriter. He is featured in the seminal book on the development of New Zealand popular music, Blue Smoke: The Lost Dawn of New Zealand Popular Music 1918–1964 by Chris Bourke (Auckland University Press, 2010) with two pages on his life and career (pages 234–236). He was a child star, and later was HMV's first country-music signing in New Zealand, and one of New Zealand's most prolific singer-songwriters of the 1950s. He toured widely in New Zealand and Australia. More recently, songs written by him have been covered by artists including Patsy Riggir and the Topp Twins. Paora (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article now demonstrates that it meets GNG. Schwede 66 18:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been improved since nomination by the addition of references to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:44, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nursultan Ruziboev[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:MMANOT, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG. The sources don't look reliable to me. There are MMA-specific outlets and they aren't covering him. Profiles don't count. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Uzbekistan. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:NMMA. His highest ranking from Fight Matrix is 89th in the world light heavyweight rankings, which is far from the top 10 requirement. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 16:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as a boxer or MMA fighter. I had to rely on computer translations for many of the articles (and some didn't translate at all), but I didn't see coverage that convinces me that he meets WP:GNG. Most of what I found was either fight reporting, fight announcements, or passing mentions. Papaursa (talk) 15:07, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Civic Sardinia[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. Political parties are not presumed notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Italy. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft keep - Although I agree that political parties are not inherently notable, this article is backed by several secondary sources. Several others can be found online. Compared with previous (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) and recent (see here) Afd's, at least this party was able to contest an election and elect somebody at regional level... P1221 (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll note that the original page author has been topic-banned from Italian politics: User_talk:Scia_Della_Cometa#Topic_ban_and_partial_block. It weighs on my opinion of the page.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@49ersBelongInSanFrancisco Maybe you should inform yourself better before commenting: I can't edit only on the "List of political parties in Italy" page due to a dispute. I am free to create and edit any other page related to this topic. Your speedy deletion request has already been rejected because this is not a valid reason...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scia Della Cometa, in WP:TBAN it states "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic... For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather." I am not an administrator, but I would interpret your ban to include not only the literal list of parties, but also to include disputes over what are or are not parties. I defer to actual administrators whether any further enforcement is warranted. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The party, which participated in a regional election and elected one regional councillor, is sourced and definitely encyclopedic. Unfortunately, similar parties with similar electoral support, like Trentino's Taverna List, have been deleted (interestingly enough, the AfD proponent was the very same editor who has written this article and I do not understand the logic), but I hope that at least this article can be kept. --Checco (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not so strange, the Taverna List did not elect any councilor and the page was practically devoid of sources, while this party has elected some of its own representatives and has participated in political summits with other local parties. When I propose an Afd, I do not rely only on mere electoral data. Obviously it remains a small party, its deletion would not be a serious loss, even if usually such parties are not deleted. As the author of the page I will refrain from voting for its keeping, after all it would be inconsistent with the activity I am currently carrying out (a very light cleaning of the categories on Italian parties). I would not have intervened in this Afd, if there hadn't been any out of place user's intervention above (I am still free to create pages of any topic).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco: You have a topic ban, so I have to discourage your opinion in this matter. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, User:SDC and I have been blocked only from the pages List of political parties in Italy and Talk:List of political parties in Italy. There is no topic-ban upon us. --Checco (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with a view to increase the article content and references. Also, Checco and SDC are not topic-banned from discussing and editing articles related to Italian politics in general, only List of political parties in Italy and its Talk page.--Autospark (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it hold a seat in the regional council Braganza (talk) 14:12, 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. ✗plicit 14:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of novels considered the greatest[edit]

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

This list is completely subjective and fails WP:LSC. A comparable deletion discussion took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of television series considered the best. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is completely bonkers. Considered by who? Who decides whose consideration is worth consideration? Who considered a novel great 100 years ago but had no chance to benchmark it against Harry Potter because they're dead now? How can you compare Ulysses with The Spy Who Came in from the Cold? What role genre, in other words? What IS greatness? I could clearly go on, but the issues raised by the very concept being proposed by this list are legion and it needs to go and quickly. Agree the precedent set by the TV AfD is salutary. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would at least consider reverting back to this very short version to remove the unsourced "stick my favorite book in" cruft that has crept in during the past year at bare minimum. I believe that this is a notable topic but it's possible that the current structure requires WP:TNT, draftification, and a top-to-bottom rethink to be reborn, along with eternal semi-protection. (Note that I had a discussion with article creator Hurrygane years ago and we clearly deeply disagreed on how best to structure such an article, as he defended the current structure as the only way to do such an article and attacked the video game article as bad, but I would propose that something like List of video games considered the best or List of prominent operas, with rigorously defined inclusion criteria and aggressive reverting to enforce it, could possibly work. It wouldn't look anything like the current article, though. So this is basically a "delete but without setting precedent that the article is unsalvageable should a better version be made" vote). SnowFire (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Justi yaya 15:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with all that Alexandermcnabb says. In addition I wonder if the person who made this list is truly familiar with all the books listed: Seven Pillars of Wisdom, for example, is not a novel. Athel cb (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment. I've reverted back to an older, sourced form of the list, for any future voters confused as to the article seen by the above users vs. the reverted form. Although the methodology is IMO still bad even in the older version. Honestly those unsourced additions probably should have bene reverted first, although it doesn't speak well that the article wasn't maintained. (@Athel cb: In fairness to the article creator, Seven Pillars of Wisdom was one of a spate of very recent additions to the article a week ago, so that one wasn't their fault.) SnowFire (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT; surely a notable concept to some extent but this is not the way to go about anything here. Dronebogus (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know the article was reverted to an earlier version, but IMHO this version is even worse than before. We now have a "List of novels considered the greatest" containing only 5 works all more than a century old and all by European authors. I see no way for this list to be saved. Nuke this entire thing and be done with it.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ugh. While this could be sourced, the inclusion criteria are an issue. A single mention in one RS will create a gigantic list, particularly as the list already uses fuzzy criteria, ex. the second source talks about "best book ever written.". A list of novels called greatest, best and like seems pretty WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me. PS. If this goes, we should discuss List of films considered the best and List of video games considered the best. List of greatest hits albums is probably ok given the existence of the concept of Greatest hits album. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of those have pretty well-defined list criteria, though. The inclusion criteria for List of films considered the best is that each film must have been voted the best in a notable poll. The inclusion criteria for List of video games considered the best is that each game must have appeared on six or more "best games of all time" lists. Additional details/clarifications can be read at Talk:List of films considered the best and Talk:List of video games considered the best, respectively. That being said, I'm not exactly unbiased since I have been quite heavily involved in editing the film list and discussing the entries and inclusion criteria on its talk page. I will say that I think the film list should have a somewhat higher threshold for inclusion (i.e. be more restrictive in which polls are counted) and that I find it dubious that the video game list considers appearing on several "top 100" (or similar) lists as the same thing as being considered the best regardless of position or even if the list is unranked—it should either restrict itself to the top entries like the film list or be renamed List of video games considered among the best (or something along those lines). TompaDompa (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this is a valid way of constructing this list. Melissa Bank, William Faulkner, and Vladimir Nabokov all considering Anna Karenina the best/greatest/their favourite book is three individuals' viewpoints. I think it is self-evident that these viewpoints are not WP:DUE individually. Wikipedia editors collating these individual viewpoints doesn't change that—as the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data. The assembly of data needs to both be more rigorous and come from the sources, lest we be improperly synthesizing. See List of films considered the best for how this could (theoretically, at least) be done, but that would be a fundamentally different list than the one under discussion and would need to be constructed from scratch. TompaDompa (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Different random people would give different opinions on what the greatest novels were. Dream Focus 18:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While this topic is likely notable, it needs to be destroyed before something decent can be built. Currently, it is little more than a collection of opinions. I will admit that the sheer breadth and subjectivity of the subject matter makes a list of greatest novels hard to build within the confines of Wikipedia's policies, however. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. There is no way to create a list like this that isn't indiscriminate, because hundreds of sources have considered hundreds of novels and it's too subjective. We could impose our own criteria, but then we'd be substituting one subjective opinion for another. Jontesta (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The list as it stands is unwieldy, but what if the list is based on the same criteria from say, the game article? That is, from six or more lists that have them stated as the best of all time? I found one from the NYT, but will look to see if I can find more. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's another - it's not a poll, but it's from Britannica. I'll continue this on the article's talk page, so as not to bog down the discussion page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - If anything, it should be based on the same criteria as the film article: having been voted the best in a notable poll. At any rate, we would have to WP:STARTOVER from scratch since that would be a fundamentally different list than the current one. TompaDompa (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've found multiple "best of" lists, so this could be made according to the VG article. It will essentially need to be done from scratch, however, as it'll take time to compare the lists. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a remade article along the lines of the video games article or the films article (both use slightly different criteria) would work well. Can always ask that the existing version be userfied / draftified if you want to keep the history, although nabbing the existing sources used is probably the most valuable part. SnowFire (talk) 16:04, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United Express Flight 4933[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. This was a minor flight incident and the sources are primarily local and short-term in nature. User:Namiba 13:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Maine, and New Jersey. User:Namiba 13:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this was a unusual and unique incident where the aircraft completely missed the runway and the fact that there was flight instrument errors. The aircraft was also written off and three occupants were injured. The NTSB report took more than three years to come out which is way longer than most “minor incidents” and even some major accidents which results in a total loss of life. ThePoi (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, community consensus at WP:AVIATION holds that hull-loss accidents involving airliners are typically considered notable even if there are no fatalities, and the circumstances are unique as ThePoi said; as I discuss in the Talk page, I'm at a loss to find a single similar accident where an airliner missed the runway completely(!) due to a combination of pilot overconfidence and ILS problems. Carguychris (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Quite an interesting and unusual incident, or rather accident, that is unusual enough to warrant its own article. The human factors contributing to the accident, in addition to the faulty ILS system, solidify this article as an important case study for Aviation Accidents. Yobbin (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Aviation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 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 14:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan Vargas[edit]

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

Mexican football manager. Fails WP:GNG. Single source, no SIGCOV. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about former footballer and current manager who never played at a level higher than the second tier of Mexican football. According to this, Vargas made his first appearance in the starting eleven for Lobos BUAP in his final season with the club (he was primarily a reserve before this). I can't find online Spanish-language coverage other than match reports and other interviews and match previews that fall far short of being SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:04, 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. ✗plicit 14:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carroll L. Hurd[edit]

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

Hurd was mayor of St. Louis Park, Minnestota. A suburb of Minneapolish which had about 25,000 people when he became mayor. It would grow to about 43,000 people by 1960, but he was mayor for only a short time in the early 1950s. Mayors of places this size, and actually pretty much all mayors, are not default notable. The local history source and the "political graveyard source", neither would add to notability, I found a 1 line mention of him having retired in a general report of multiple mayoral changes at the time he left office and I found a photo of him in this issue of the Rotarian [74] on a page with 63 photos. This is not the stuff notability is made of John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Kablammo (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not default notable as a small town mayor. Andrevan@ 00:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyJew (talk • contribs) 06:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL as a local mayor. Novemberjazz 02:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable local politician. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smalltown mayors are not automatically notable just because they exist, but this features neither the quality of sourcing nor the depth of substance needed to actually get Hurd over the bar that a mayor would have to clear. Bearcat (talk) 12:18, 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 delete. ✗plicit 12:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Ka Dhaba case[edit]

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

Not a notable event to have a Wikipedia page. Fail to pass WP:GNG Jimandjam (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and India. Jimandjam (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why not notable? Sufficient media sources are provided. Even highly reliable ones also. Ryan990110 (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 12:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't a notable event or controversy, there is virtually no in depth coverage in reliable sources and nothing sustained. PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi @PRAXIDICAE, thanks for your response. I am the owner of this article. I respect your comment only if it is unbiased. As you had already (recently) opened another deletion page for me. I know you had a long history of user-targeting, violent discussion with everyone as "evidence found on your own talk page". Anyway, have a nice day!Ryan990110 (talk) 13:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 12:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You own nothing on Wikipedia. Further, if you have issues with my behavior or edits, WP:ANI is the place to discuss it, not here @Ryan990110. I suggest you remove your ridiculous accusation or go to ANI and substantiate it with WP:DIFFs. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, sir. And please don't mistook me: I said "owner" instead of author. Sorry for that. I didn't accused you, I am just telling what maybe true! Apologies, if you hurt. Again, have a nice day. Ryan990110 (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 12:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of sustained coverage and/or lasting significance. Also has significant WP:BLP implications. Ovinus (talk) 23:02, 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 12:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WELSIM[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

The only independent sources are trivial mentions. In my searches, I could find only more trivial mentions - various researchers noted that they had used WELSIM, but provided no detail about the program. This doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE. Previous AFD was in 2017 and was closed early as a G11 speedy. MrOllie (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing many other listed FEA software that has no independent sources at all, deleting WELSIM seems lack of fairness. Goeasyon (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. MrOllie (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:* Keep: independent academic literatures from various authors sufficiently prove the authenticity of a finite element analysis/simulation software. Reviewing many other listed FEA software, either no independent sources or paid sources. If WELSIM page is deleted, those pages may be supposed to be deleted by first. Here are the far unquantified software if applying the same or lower criteria: Calculix (no independent sources), DIANA FEA (trivial independent sources), Dune (no independent sources), Elmer (no independent sources), FEBio (no independent sources), FEniCS (trivial independent sources), FreeFem++ (no independent sources), GOMA (trivial independent sources), GetFEM++ (no independent sources), SESAM (all failed reference links), Range Software (no independent sources), FreeCAD (FEM source from an individual blog), Advance Design (no sources, no content), Autodesk Simulation (no independent sources), SolidWorks Simulation (no independent sources), Quickfield (no independent sources), Pam Crash (no independent sources), RFEM (no independent sources), SimScale (trivial independent sources, many paid articles from engineering.com), VisualFEA (no independent sources), JMAG (all independent sources failed), SDC Verifier (no independent sources). Goeasyon (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC) — Goeasyon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

*keep After lookup business data, WELSIM and WelSimulation LLC are legit. It is very impressive for a small company being able to develop such a FEA software. Zjjchen (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC) — Zjjchen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Engineering, and Pennsylvania. Justi yaya 15:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:*:KEEPWELSIM is very good and promising engineering software specialized in very sophisticated numerical simulation of structures, fluids, electro-magnetics and coupled physics. It has a very modern pre and post processing user interface. It has an advanced meshing capability and provides interfaces to various CAD systems. It has a considerable user bases and is growing rapidly. I would like to see Wikipedia can display more information about WELSIM. This will help many WELSIM users and many other engineering software users and developers. Ongurouth (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC) — Ongurouth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

Delete and possibly speedy delete under WP:G11 and salt. The current sourcss barely even mention WELSIM, looking for other sources turns up basically nothing (barely even trivial mentions from unreliable sources), and the page is promotional. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Paid spam, sources fail NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 13:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: per WP:G11. Mahdiar86 (talk) 11:05, 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 keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bukunmi Oluwasina[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Poor References, Failed to Pass WP:GNG. None of the sources are independent. No lead role. Jimandjam (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Artists. Jimandjam (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is sourced from reliable sources according to the list on WP:NGRS.So,all these references used on the article are not poor according to WP:NGRS. Aderiqueza (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This biography of an actress should not be judged because it was once nominated for deletion and got deleted when it was created by another user years ago.It should be critically checked and the nomination should not be biased. Aderiqueza (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fellow Wikipedians, I had intended not to comment on or persuade any of the decisions of the AfD opened on any of the articles started during the #AfroCreativesWiki project because we had intensively trained the participants and I don't want the standards that has made Wikipedia what it is to be bent.
This article was created as a part of an ongoing #AfroCreativesWiki edit-a-thon (where I happen to be Wikipedian in Residence) and I chimed in to say two things.
- The topic has been nominated for significant awards (however they are for works that have not been significant enough to make it to Wikipedia)
- The reincarnation of this article may not be much different than it was when it was deleted 2 years ago. It is left to the discretion of this discussion keep or delete it.
- Because the editor is new, we might rather move the article to draft rather than delete.
Whatever the outcome, it will be taken as a lesson for other participants.

Thank you. Danidamiobi (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources in the article appear to support WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO notability. She has won and been nominated for notable awards, and there are independent and reliable sources that offer depth about her and her career, e.g. BBC (2020), Legit (2020). Beccaynr (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet WP:GNG. As per WP:BEFORE, sources beyond those currently on the article at the time of nomination should be considered. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BASIC. Article has been nicely improved since nomination, and contains multiple sources that describe her in enough detail that are listed at WP:NGRS. Femke (talk) 16:23, 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. ✗plicit 12:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Chamber of Exporters of Sri Lanka[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Earlier G11, G12 violation deleted page again recreated. The page earlier deleted with this log: 2014-11-16 07:38 (Jimfbleak): G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.nce.lk/. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 11:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "National Chamber of Exporters of Sri Lanka (NCE) is a national chamber which serves Sri Lankan exporters." The stubbiest stub since St Stubby the Stubby Stub. No content, no notability, nothing to say. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandermcnabb this diff makes a big sense for this nomination. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 12:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At least you'd want to write a few words for the money you're charging! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandermcnabb heck. I don't wanna get blocked by doing such. I have never edited any promotion pages. I have a strong belief that the user is a sock and creating pages taking money (tons of such examples in freelancer sites). Their edits in the pages are like doing in a hurry which resulted out several issues. But at the AfD, they change than the page editor one. At all the AfD, they don't sound like a newcomer, but hammers with strong Wiki knowledge which never reflected on page creation. Thus, I suspect a sock as the language and tone of the page creator and the same in AfD are having fast difference. Have you noticed that? _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 13:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been looking out for a pattern of editing, to be honest, NeverTry4Me. Do I have a vague recollection something around this was mentioned at ANI? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Provide the ANI link please Alexandermcnabb. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 13:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no link! Just a vague recollection of something - I wouldn't set any store by my vague recollection! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please don't accuse, I have accepted money. My connection with this institution was, I was a speaker at an event organized by them in 2000. I have sent screenshots of a newspaper and a photo (which published my speech) to ArbCom via email.Eesan1969 (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eesan1969: You must declare COI and UPE which you haven't done yet. Now, as you have admitted that you have clear COI when you say "My connection with this institution was, I was a speaker at an event organized by them in 2000" - that confirms the COI. Please have a look at COI and ask yourself why you are forbidden to create and edit such a page and what to do when you are connected with the subject. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 16:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Sri Lanka. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 06:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the substub article cites three refs, first one is non-indepedent, second one can't be opened (might be my laptop's issue, or is it a dead link?), third one mentions a minor, trivial award. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP, which is more demanding than GNG (the latter this also fails). The creator probably has a WP:COI, evident from the disclaimer, that alone isn't a deletion rationle, as it's not enough for CSD under G11, but notability criteria are failed, so delete is definitely suitable. VickKiang (talk) 08:57, 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. ✗plicit 11:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Covelya Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. --Bears (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. --Bears (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability, all I'm seeing are announcements and unremarkable company listings. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not any reliable sources for establishing notability.Mahdiar86 (talk) 11:07, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss USA States[edit]

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

Absolutely no reason for this article to exist. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 10:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - purpose served by the Miss USA page and Category:Miss USA state pageants --‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 12:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Beauty pageants, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely redundant and borderline nonsensical Dronebogus (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally list cruft. ApprenticeWiki ^work 23:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 05:21, 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 Florence and the Machine discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 11:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Wiltern (Florence and the Machine album)[edit]

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

There isn't an obvious place for this to be redirected to except perhaps the discography. No significant coverage beyond its existence, not notable per WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 10:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 10:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's next to nothing out there. This teensy weensy passing mention on NPR is pretty much all I could come up with. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NALBUM. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Florence and the Machine discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond a passing mention in the source presented above. SBKSPP (talk) 23:04, 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 11:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Western Australian machinery of government changes[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. JarrahTree 09:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JarrahTree 09:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Not sure how this ever got an article - it's the kind of routine new-government departmental restructuring that happens after every change of government, and there's nothing that was unusually controversial, interesting, or notable outside of primary sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources at the time would contradict your assertions - it was substantial change, and the sheer number of changes were and still have ramifications as to how the wa government operates if you ask a senior public servant. Its all very hohum, if there is need to delete it, maybe some of the content can be reassigned, I have no interest in defending or asserting anything about the article - maybe someone else has more interest to go one way or the other, there's a lot more rubbish on wp than this that needs attention. JarrahTree 09:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like there was public attention at the time, let alone after the fact - if its ramifications are only known to senior public servants in the state, then that's probably not indicative of notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At most this should be a couple of lines in the Government of Western Australia article under the heading '2017 Reforms'. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was actually an election promise by McGowan in order to reduce costs. I seem to recall some public attention to if at the time, but I can't seem to find much evidence of that using Google. The content is certainly relevant to Wikipedia, but I don't think there is enough there to justify its own article. All it needs is a paragraph or two on Mark McGowan and a few sentences on the relevant departments. Steelkamp (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 05:21, 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 11:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Róża Maria Potocka[edit]

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

Prodded by User:XxTechnicianxX with "Absent of sources for 16 years and 10 months.". Depodded by User:Espresso Addict with "Deprodding; enough here to merit full discussion at AfD". Sadly, the PROD nom seems to be correct - nothing in the article suggests notability (per WP:INHERITED, being a part of a noble family is not sufficient). My BEFORE only confirms she existed (is mentioned in genealogical trees), but I can't find any WP:SIGCOV-meeting discussion of her life. The article is still unreferenced and has no pl wiki equivalent. Could redirect to the article about her notable ~~husband~~son, perhaps. I know, I know, but nothing else we can do given lack of sourcing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lots of trivial mentions that seem to justify existence, but no more, and doesn't meet Wikipedia:GNG or Notability (biography). VickKiang (talk) 09:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd have gone A7 on this - unsourced, no evidence of notability. The vast majority of what's out there is Wiki stuff. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume you are right to delete and maybe I'm stating the obvious here, but I found more searching for ""Potocka Róża Maria" but gave up due to language barriers. CT55555 (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GBooks seems to return the same results for me for both searchers, interesting, but not helpful in finding new sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 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 per consensus. If this comes up again, please scrutinize the sources. The fake references are disturbing, indeed. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autopix[edit]

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

No evidence found of any notability. Sources seem to be added randomly, e.g. "In 2018, 3sixtyfactory project was joined by Adam Finch." is sourced to this from 2011 which mentions nothing about any of this, and "In 2022, 3sixtyfactory merged with Autopix as one company. Autopix offers free training in technology and innovation, to people facing financial hardship in the Philippines." is sourced to this book from 2013 which again has no information on autopix or 3sixtyfactory or Bakke, never mind about what happened in the Philippines in 2022 obviously. While I can't access the 2022 version of the book used as source 2, the 2013 version again doesn't mention either the prof or his software. Looking for better sources only produced primary sources. Fram (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Software, and Norway. Fram (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with sourcing/citation style concerns - additionally there's next to nothing out there that contributes to any case for notability for this mobile app based retouching service. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I ask to move to draft and give some time to work on it. There are printed books and magazines with this software. I will have time later to citate the page with those sources. --Lucky Namrd (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you should have waited to create this page until you had these, instead of falsifying sources. Anyway, you could at least give us some titles of these books surely? You have a week. Fram (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable software company --Morpho achilles (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The fake referencing is truly disturbing. Aside from that, the subject of the article does not meet WP criteria for notability, and therefore should not be retained in the encyclopedia. I'm not finding that the software, nor the company meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Netherzone (talk) 00:59, 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!} 06:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tolombeh-ye Mohammad Shafi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND#1 as it is not a legally-recognised populated community (such as, e.g., an incorporated town), and also fails WP:GNG as there is no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Part of a violation of WP:MASSCREATE/WP:MEATBOT by Carlossuarez46 - see this ARBCOM case for details and this talk page discussion where Farsi-speaking editors explained to Carlos why the creation of these articles was a mistake.

The name means literally "Mohammed Shafi's Pump" - pumps are very common land-marks in Iran due to its dryness and are not necessarily associated with villages. Sources are GEONet Names Server (which is unreliable) and the Iranian Census, which (as explained in the above-linked talk-page discussion) simply counts people around a named location that need not be a community of any kind and can be e.g., a teahouse, farm, factory, petrol station, oil rig, railway station, or pump. The article comes with co-ordinates, but the co-ordinates are an empty field roughly equidistant between two large farms/small villages (it is impossible to tell from the satellite view which they are). The location is part of the larger village of Anbarābād which is in a totally different county, not even a neighbouring one, to Arzuiyeh County where this supposed "village" is supposed to be.

NB. - an FA wiki version of this article exists but it is cited to the English wikipedia article, which shows just how dangerous this kind of fake article can be as it leads to the creation of fake on-map locations through citogenesis. Arguments that this kind of article is "harmless" are completely wrong and a common Wiki-fallacy. FOARP (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. FOARP (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete depressing that editors are still labouring to clear out years worth of rubbish from Carlossuarez46. Mccapra (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. . –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:40, 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!} 06:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jitto Arulampalam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. References are routine news for a WP:BLP. scope_creep^Talk 07:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All resources are primary and some are misleading. Bloomberg profile is not notable as per Wiki notability. The page creator could have gone for AfC, but they created in mainspace. Most of the creations are inclined to COI and UPE. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 11:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill exec. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ref bombed. non-notable individual. Oaktree b (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only primary sources (suspectedly written by the subject) and no evidence of notability. JamesKH76 (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 23:04, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Application Programming Interface Exchange[edit]

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

Fails WP:ADMASQ, WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 07:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, WP:ADMASQ "the world’s first cross-border, open architecture API marketplace and sandbox platform for collaboration between FinTechs and financial institutions it brings together financial industry participants to discover, design and deploy innovative digital solutions within a collaborative ecosystem." Brochure. Fails WP:NCORP once you get beyond that. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and the clear COI as per this diff. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 10:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 12:40, 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!} 05:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2XL Swagger[edit]

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

Fails NCORP - no independent coverage. Sourced to press releases and paid content. KH-1 (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. About the only thing that isn't promotional material or paid content is the company's SEC filing stuff. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 19:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - like the other two promotional articles written by this user, it is probably undisclosed paid-for spam. Author blocked. MER-C 16:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources I find about this company are SEC filings, company profiles, press releases, and other churnalism. Likely undisclosed COI. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. DIVINE 09:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NCORP. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Add: Also, just noted that the article creator has been indef blocked for advertising/promotion HighKing⁺⁺ 15:06, 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!} 05:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Games[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NCORP. Gameindustry.biz (GIBiz) is the only reliable source covering the company, and it is an interview. While the company may have released one or two notable games or hosted several showcases, notability is not inherited. So far no independent secondary sources discuss the company's history in a significant manner. OceanHok (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. OceanHok (talk) 05:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sourcing is a collection of passing mentions in connection to one or two games the company released. As OceanHok correctly points out, the only source that could be considered in-depth (or merely non-passing) is an interview done mere weeks after the company's creation. I reckong the page was already deleted last year, though I cannot recall the exact circumstances. The sourcing situation has not improved since then. IceWelder [✉] 12:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other notes. Andrevan@ 23:47, 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 Speedy keep. The article is currently on the main page, so WP:SK#6 applies. This shouldn't be nominated until after its run is over, or consensus for removal gained at ERRORS is the issue is so egregious tha it needs actioning now. — Amakuru (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrath Month[edit]

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

This is not actually a thing. The sources consist of tongue-in-cheek treatments and reporting on a Twitter meme. There is no actual celebration, organization, or establishment of this "event". It's basically fake and a hoax. It definitely does not merit a standalone Wikipedia article. Elizium23 (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Events. Elizium23 (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it might be a meme, but it still receives significant coverage, including Washington Post. Giant Snowman 06:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is currently on the Main Page, making it eligible for WP:SK#6. ansh.666 06:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Instead of deletion I suggest an edit to make it more clear that this is a meme and has not yet culminated in protests or parades. There are also arguably less widespread and impactful memes with their own wikipedia pages. So, because of that and the notion that deletion is a last resort I would leave it standing. Ridley303 (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 09:15, 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 keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Nibagwire[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. There is this New York Times video of her, but no article [75]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Africa, and Rwanda. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (or keep – depending overall votes) – Per found sources: [76], [77] (2 and 3 have different authors),[78], [79].--MonFrontieres (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per sources found by MonFrontires. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find multiple independent sources of significant coverage. MonFrontieres'sources are routine, a couple of sentences on her, a wholly unreliable website that just links to the NYT video and a non independent youtube interview from FERWAFA, the Rwandan FA. Dougal18 (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources which show notability. Giant Snowman 13:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - narrowly passes GNG based on the sources identified, IMO. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:30, 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadis & Goldberg[edit]

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

A run-of-the-mill law firm with no refs that clearly establish WP:NCORP. A mix of PR and dubious industry awards. Wikipedia is not attorney advertising. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and New York. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ant run of the mill, it is serving only buyside clients are not at liberty to saar or draw too much attention .

I created and contributed most in this article imperviously, Ron Geffner who heads the legal practice with 800 funds regularly comments on legal topics on mainstream media is the go to person for such matters AND was linked to two other prominent directors of a Canadian fintech regulated payments business.. Ron Geffner, Managing Partner of Sadis also previously served as the non-exec director on the board TSX.V listed fintech company Midpoint (company). Enhanced DD and forensic investigation The shareholders benefited immensely from his actions' at the material time as a shareholderdispute and board proxy battle was resolved with the Sadis lawyer as an independent. Sadis' manageng partner also had the highest number of shareholder votes despite not being management, but wwas nominated by shareholders

https://www.globenewswire.com/fr/news-release/2017/09/27/1288190/0/en/Midpoint-Holdings-Ltd-Appointment-of-Officers.html https://www.globenewswire.com/fr/news-release/2017/09/27/1288190/0/en/Midpoint-Holdings-Ltd-Appointment-of-Officers.html Recommend this stays, with a proper update on reputable sources and a cleanup. It is the largest law firm servicing hedge funds and the alternative sector only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangerousrave (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have also nominated Ron S. Geffner, an article about one of this law firm's executives, for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron S. Geffner. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keep. Has some references to establish notability. Andrevan@ 23:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC) On further investigation, all the sources were just trivial mentions, press releases, or mentions of the main partner not of the firm except incidentally. Andrevan@ 00:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my comment on further investigation. Andrevan@ 00:16, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sabine Gaspersz[edit]

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

Pro forma nomination on behalf of this addition to the logpage by 174.4.152.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). jp×g 04:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Sportspeople, and Netherlands. jp×g 04:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless I am missing something, the only sources I find are Wikipedia mirrors. Fails GNG, NSWIM, NATHLETE. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 12:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowhere near notability. gidonb (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 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 Procedural close, please open a new AFD discussion.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popular monarchy[edit]

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

Was nominated for deletion in 2010 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Popular monarchy). Has had OR and lack of source tags since at least 2010 and after having 8 years to resolve issues, has simply never been done. As editors have remarked: "this entire page is based on a misconception based on a random idiosyncratic article published in 2005. Not encyclopedic", and "I really don't see much that is salvageable here". Any information that is remotely encyclopedic is already covered in other articles, such as the Martin Kingsley article, or articles on royal titles. It was also nominated for deletion eight years ago and was kept only in the hopes that it could be improved, which it clearly has not. trackratte (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD was never transcluded to a logpage, meaning nobody ever saw it, commented on it, or closed it (ergo it is still open).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 04:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. jp×g 04:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR indeed and impressively longstanding a piece of OR it is. Also I hate this style of proto-referencing. I mean, who the hell are Upchick, Clissold and White? Unverifiable cruft is what we have here and it needs to go. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete prose seems to be predicated on a distinction drawn in one paper by one scholar, not a scholarly consensus. Remaining citations lack sufficient information to have any value. List is largely WP:OR. Though the shift from 'King of the (people)' to 'King of (country)' has been commented upon with respect to how a nation-state viewed itself, the different titulature can likewise represent nothing but the whim of the monarch or scribe. Grouping an early-medieval tribal leader with a modern monarch trying to make some political statement, just becasue the two appear with the same syntactic titular style, is apples and oranges. Agricolae (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but prune. The first modern Greek monarchy was King of Greece, but the second was king of the Hellenes. In France, the traditional title was King of France, but when Louis XVIII lost his throne to Louis Phillipe, the title became King of the French. This is a real distinction, but I do not think it is useful to encumber the article with a load of medieval examples, particularly English ones where the title might vary from one charter to another. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peterkingiron. The fact that the article's cited using a weird old format is, well, annoying, but it seems quite trivial to fix. There are a few sources cited, and not just the one guy. jp×g 18:18, 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. No policy-based reasons were made for keeping. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Kumar Yadav (academic)[edit]

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

Non-notable academic, fails WP:NPROF, books listed are non-notable. User4edits (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and India. jp×g 04:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is the google scholar profile: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Z-fh2-kAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao But I was concerned to see most of the elements referenced on this profile are not attributable to him (but to other academics under the name R Kumar) as shown by the fact they are from totally different fields such as chemistry, psychiatry, etc. I could not find the academic contributions listed on the Wikipedia page in google scholar.

Under those circumstances, I do not think the subject passes criterium 1 of WP:ACADEMIC. JamesKH76 (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NPROF, and his google scholar profile is obviously him taking credit for other people's work. KSAWikipedian (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With papers going as far back as the 1950s. Thank you JamesKH76. KSAWikipedian (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Google scholar automatically enlist the papers, he is Dean and meets Wikipedia guidelines, similarly as the page was kept alive after discussion previously.I love to be honest (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just confirmed google scholar leaves the final choice to profile maker. Also per Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes under 6C, deans do no meet WP:NPROF. You have the last for the last discussion? KSAWikipedian (talk) 03:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment per [80] noen of his papers have more than 1 citation. KSAWikipedian (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There seems to be some massive discrepancies

[] His Wikipedia says he is Dean at some Baba Mast Nath University, but the reference (2) cited shows the name only as Dr. Raj Kumar, and not Raj Kumar Yadav (most educational institutes will put full formal names).

[] His profiles at Vidwaan (cited) and SSRN (both verified by his full name and image) show his designation as Assistant Professor at a different university -- Central University of Punjab.

[] At the website of Central University of Punjab, he is NOT the dean, but merely an assistant professor while someone else is Dean. His full name and photo can be verified at his profile at the University website.

Edit: On his SSRN profile he has mentioned his Wikipedia page (calling him dean at some other univ) but has not updated his affiliation (had it been changed), this rules out that the probability that he was earlier at a different university and now a dean at some other university.

This takes me to ANI Notice on talk page of the User who created this page and their recent behaviour indicating promoting Non-notable individuals, perhaps paid. User4edits (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He was Dean in a private university and he joined Central University of Punjab at initial level i.e. Assistant Professor. He is having 14 years experience and books are circulated 8n various libraries of different countries.I love to be honest (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That does not explain why did you not update his Wikipedia page, despite being so closely aware about this person? User4edits (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As my talk page received the nomination I came to know and updated. I love to be honest (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR when digging into it a bit. As eluded to above, it all seems a bit suspcious too. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His books on worldcat shows his books are widely circulated in different countries. He has worked in two Universities as Head and in one University as Dean.I love to be honest (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he was head of a faculty, not a whole university? Any significant independant reviews of his books? -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eight international libraries have his two major works and others are also circulated vast including Parliamentary library. [81]I love to be honest (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8 library holdings doesn't always mean 8 separate libraries. It might be 5, of which 3 hold both books, which doesn't seem like a lot to be to be honest. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep He has worked as Dean in a University and having 14 years experience of teaching and research. He meets academic criteria and with many books his two books are in eight reputed libraries. His page is since 2020 and nomination of deletion is equal to defamation of a reputed for person. Thousand of people know that his page is since 2020 and deletion will tarnish his academic repute. His page removal will raise many questions for him. Mamtakuhu20 (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how that is grounds for a speedy keep under WP:SK? -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominating an article for deletion is not "defamation". Approximately 70-90 articles get nominated for deletion discussions every day, it's just a normal process on Wikipedia. You are taking this way too personally. And no one "needs" a Wikipedia article. If he doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards, it doesn't mean that he's not good at his job it just means that he doesn't current meet Wikipedia standards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Sir, where I can see the previous Afd of this page for contesting the page deletion strongly.I love to be honest (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Who said anything about a previous AFD? -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ This is a page of an academic person and not an advertisement or self promotion.I love to be honest (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You've already !voted. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck double-vote. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:58, 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 Speedy delete under WP:A7 by admin Ged UK. (non-admin closure) Ab207 (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepti Malik[edit]

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

Deepti Malik

This is one of three versions of an unreferenced biography of a living person that do not explain why the subject satisfies musical notability or general notability. They could be tagged for BLPPROD, or for A7, but a claim of significance seems to have been made, so we might as well go to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Maharashtra. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom StartOkayStop (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other two versions are:

Singer.deeptimalik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Singer Deepti Malik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. jp×g 04:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: this is textbook WP:CSD. For reference, the entire content of the article is: "Deepti Malik is mumbai based indian hindi classical singer. She has guiness world record book awardee for singing performance. She also sings in Bollywood hindi, punjabi & haryanvi music industry. Deepti Malik is from kharar muzzfarngr (up) and stay in city of dream Mumbai. She nominated in Guinness World Records holder for her participation in mega music event in December 2019. The organised in Mumbai." jp×g 04:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:JPxG - Yes. The claim of a Guinness Book of World Records entry might clear the low bar of credible claim of significance, but it fails verifiability and notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: It says "participation in mega music event in December 2019", implying that it was a collective record (like the largest number of performers in an event, or the like). Searching the Guinness website, the only musical record mentioning Mumbai in December 2019 is [82], which is the "longest karaoke marathon by multiple participants" (with Virag Madhumalati being listed as the recipient). There is no mention of Deepti Malik, which indicates that they were one of many participants. jp×g 04:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:JPxG - Then the article, as written, is making a false claim, which is being verified to be a false claim in the process of this deletion discussion. The author is blowing smoke and waving their hands. I would !vote Delete except that I have already !voted by nominating. I thought of tagging the three ~~turds~~ stubs as A7 and didn't. Another editor can still tag it. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Nupamjo (talk) 05:35, 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. The "keep" case is weak: it makes reference only to publications by this self-declared government. These are not sources that are independent from the subject of the article, and therefore not reliable sources. In the absence of such sources, WP:V mandates deletion. Sandstein 19:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative divisions of the Donetsk People's Republic[edit]

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

This is an unreferenced fork of Donetsk People's Republic#Administrative divisions, which cites only unreliable sources; unencyclopedic; it’s like WP:SYNTH but not from reliable sources, giving the appearance of legitimacy to a fake country; borderline WP:HOAX. This information is not found in WP:reliable sources

This is a detailed expansion of a decree by the “authorities” in a Russian puppet state in Ukraine about territories they only partially control, which can be summed up in a single line in the main article: “the DNR authorities issued a decree rejecting Ukraine's 2020 reform of administrative divisions in Donetsk Oblast and only recognize the older division into raions: see Administrative divisions of Donetsk Oblast#Administrative divisions until 2020.”

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrative divisions of the Luhansk People's Republic. —Michael Z. 03:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —Michael Z. 03:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources cited, and much of this territory is not even in their control. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A decree of the head of DPR is a reliable source for the administrative division of DPR - which currently controls most of Donestk oblast. The official Ukrainian administrative division is different and it should be, and is, described in another article. The fact that DPR isn't recognised is irrelevant, other unrecognised states have articles about their administrative divisions, e.g., Administrative divisions of Somaliland. Alaexis_¿question? 08:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The self-published decree by Kremlin proxies is only a source on the decree, and not on facts. It can be summarized by a single sentence in a parent article. I can publish a decree that I am the King of Siam, but that doesn’t rate a Wikipedia article. WP:Notability requires “significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” The self-appointed head of the DNR is the subject, not a WP:reliable source.

The Somaliland list, not article, has not be assessed, and cannot be used as a precedent. It appears to lack reliable secondary sources. —Michael Z. 15:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as Per Alaexis Cryw 9 (talk) 03:00, 11 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!} 03:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article (1) serves no tangible purpose and (2) can be described as fringe. The comparison between Donetsk PR and Somaliland is quite frankly offensive. The Somaliland situation is entirely different; it is a civil dispute with Somalia, with no obvious foreign interference. On the other hand, Donetsk PR is clearly a puppet state of Russia in Ukraine, which classifies it as an example of Russian imperialism rather than a civil Ukrainian dispute. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:53, 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. ✗plicit 04:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrgyzstan–Spain relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, another bilateral largely based on primary sources. There really isn't much to these relations except a detachment of soldiers at a base. Even the article says "Relations between Spain and the Kyrgyz Republic are still poorly developed. ". LibStar (talk) 00:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Kyrgyzstan, and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Usage of primary sources is not a reason for deletion, nor is limited development of relations between two sovereign nations. What is a reason for deletion is the lack of potential notable sources that can be found for an article, and I think that question that remains to be answered. If the answer is that those sources cannot be found, then I will support deletion. Until that is clear however, the answer is cleanup rather than deletion. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 16:57, 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 this is a reopened AFD and this page isn't even an article any more. Start a discussion at WP:RFD.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David DeFalco[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/David DeFalco

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

Clear lack of notability, failing WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. With only one significant acting role, no major fan base, no awards or recognitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angryskies (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD was created in November 2019, but was never added to a daily logpage, and never commented on, so I am relisting it now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 03:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, without prejudice to recreation; as of now, the page in question was already redirected quite some time ago without controversy and the utility of keeping this AfD open for it is questionable. jp×g 03:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. jp×g 03:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page is not an article, it is a redirect so this AFD should probably be procedurally closed as invalid. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 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 Procedural close. Please do not relist old, forgotten AFD discussions without starting from the beginning. It's better to procedurally close this and start a new AFD which includes tagging the article under discussion.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stock solution[edit]

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

The original article's subject is intended to be diluted, so therefore the article itself should be. Who's with me? RealSanix (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Dilute~~ I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. RealSanix (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Dilute~~ I do as well. This article needs to be diluted STRAIGHT-AWAY! RealSanix (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Dilute~~ I believe that RealSanix is correct in every way. RealSanix (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple !votes from NOM unbolded and struck Agricolae (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have no idea what's going on here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 03:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This AfD was created in 2019, never linked to from anywhere, and seems to never have been edited by anyone other than its creator. Additionally, it seems like a joke, rather than a serious proposal to delete an article. jp×g 03:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with mention to Solution (chemistry). As the first edit summary states ("part of joke project") this was indeed a joke, and an inappropriate one. But, with the relist and the article being properly tagged, indeed some action is warranted here. The unsourced stub is unnecessary and misleading and violates the spirit of WP:NOTDIC. Importantly, the article seems to conflate stock solution with standard solution; you can have a stock solution that is also a standard, but not all stock solutions are of precise concentration, such as buffer solutions. So define the term (correctly) at the main article and redirect there. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mdewman6 - as much as I don't want to reward an AfD launched as a joke, the page itself deserves removal, as a glorified dictionary definition that, as Mdewman says, muddles distinctions, and nothing in it is referenced or expressed in a manner that we would want to copy it as part of a merge to the target, but the namespace is a possible search term so a redirect would serve a purpose. Agricolae (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. jp×g 02:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A malformed AfD header was fixed. This AfD was also placed in the wrong category — S instead of T. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:25, 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. This is somewhat confusing but I’m going to close this as 'speedy keep' citing WP:SKCRIT#1: Absence of delete rationale. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morrison Academy[edit]

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

This article should not be deleted.

The fact that this article is considered for deletion is somewhat confusing: no justification has been given for deletion at all, and, to my knowledge, all ongoing issues have been discussed extensively in the talk page, in which there has been consensus between the two main disputants (i.e., CensoredDog and Huon) to seek Dispute Resolution. Furthermore, ongoing discussion has only lasted 4 days, from March 7 to March 11, 2019.

Additionally, there is an apparent inconsistency between the treatment of this article and that of Morrison Academy's other campus in Kaohsiung. If Morrison Academy Kaohsiung's article stays, then the Morrison Academy article, which is about the original campus, should also stay.

On my view, every article--even those about schools--should remain open to different views. A caveat has been inserted on this page before that this article is written like an advertisement. Yet, upon the insertion of certain sections and passages whose content may be controversial (i.e., the school's stance not to condone certain issues of LGBT or divorce as well as its affirmation in a science curriculum that God is the creator of the universe), content that refers to reliable (absent further objections) primary and secondary sources, and that has not been proven to put undue weight, there has been resistance. Now, rather than considering improving this article, some user(s) are attempting to get it deleted for no apparent reason. This seems nonsensical to say the least.

CensoredDog (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC) CensoredDog (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CensoredDog, GB fan, and Blueboar: I'm a bit confused. GB fan nominated the page for deletion, and then blueboar reverted adding the AfD template because the AfD page hadn't been created. It now exists (here), but only contains CensoredDog advocating that the article be kept. What is supposed to be happening? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DannyS712, you got things a little backwards. Blueboar added the AFD template to the article. About an hour after the template was added CensoredDog created this with an explanation of why the article should not be deleted. About an hour later I removed the template because Blueboar had not explained why the article should be deleted nor listed it on the AFD log. This page wasn't created correctly. If it was fixed with the proper templates and listed it would be quickly closed because there is nothing on it that advocates deletion. What needs to happen is up to anyone who wants to advocate for deletion. If no one wants to put forward a case for deletion then this can probably be deleted. ~ GB fan 00:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GB fan: sorry for messing up the timeline; thanks for explaining. Blueboar do you still think this should be deleted? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies as well... I got called away from my desk with real life work issues half way through the nom formulation process, and I still don’t have time to explain my rational (why I think the topic is non-notable). Just ignore the current nom and I will re-nominate when I am less busy. Blueboar (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This nomination was never actually listed on a daily logpage, and it was never closed; it is therefore technically still open, even though it was created in 2019.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 03:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the above discussion (no argument was ever made for deletion, and nominator planned to withdraw the AfD but never got around to it). jp×g 03:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Taiwan. jp×g 03:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Speedy" keep. Three years is long enough for this discussion. St Anselm (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:35, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Hodge[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, lacks WP:SIGCOV. This source would be more than a trivial mention [83], but that is still not enough to satisfy either criteria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found these sources which show he is notable in Trinidad and Tobago and USA: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21. In addition, he is a 16-time internationally capped player with an ongoing fully professional career, and is mentioned in countless match reports and videos. I feel like the nominator specifically tries to delete only football articles en masse for no reason. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability (although not all are SIGCOV) - needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough of the sources listed above are WP:SIGCOV, so he passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly passes GNG, lazy BEFORE.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:47, 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. Less Unless (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Barrigan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources such as this [84] are trivial at best. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and England. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found these sources which show his notability in England: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12,I13, 14, and 15. In addition, he is a player who has made pro appearances for English second tier and third tier teams, a high level, with an ongoing career, and is mentioned in countless match reports and videos. I feel like the nominator specifically tries to delete only football articles en masse for no reason. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability (although not all are SIGCOV) - needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Any coverage he has is due to being a binman playing against a top league team (WP:1E). We are not keeping articles based on Marine being fortunate to be drawn against Spurs and Barrigan having press attention for it. Das osmnezz must stop refbombing AFDs with unreliable sources and brief mentions of the subject. Dougal18 (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amen Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources do not provide significant coverage of him and are thus not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly shown to pass GNG, and arguments deprecating the sources are faulty.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources 2 and 3 cited above are sufficient to contribute to notability, but I must comment to User:Das osmnezz that the vast majority of the sources they cited are inadequate for notability purposes, and that they should keep WP:THREE in mind rather than attempting to bombard the discussion with a massive list of references. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:36, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Janouk Charbonneau[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Canada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. He is now a lawyer, based on Google. Giant Snowman 08:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was hoping to find something, he played pro-soccer in Canada. Other than confirmation of his graduation from UQAM and a career with Faskin lawyers, no suitable sources found. Props for the moustache though. Oaktree b (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently fails WP:GNG. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone supporting "delete". 2001:569:74E6:F600:BDFD:61ED:B8F2:FF8B (talk) 02:46, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 07:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antonella Alonso[edit]

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

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

I do not believe this subject meets our notability standards for adult entertainment industry performers. Notability seems premised on the fact that she wrote an undergraduate paper touching on the industry that she ended up working in, at a relatively unremarkable level with relatively insignificant awards or recognitions. BD2412 T 16:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Sexuality and gender. Shellwood (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: Google News link shows that her coverage is exclusively in Spanish. Is there any wikiproject that can help evaluate the reliability of those sources for the purposes of the GNG? Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of them are in Spanish, however there are many interviews and press releases to weed through. A quick GNews search yields profiles by GQ Italy] and El Gráfico, where Ms. Alonso gets some notoriety for a more prominent relative. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Morbidthoughts: Members of the WikiProject Venezuela can help with assessments, and WP:VENRS was created as an essay to serve as a reference for reliability. For instance, El Estímulo and El Pitazo, both of which are used as references in the article, are listed as reliable. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the article's move discussion showed (Talk:Antonella Alonso#Requested move 13 June 2022), the subject has ample and independent coverage that meets WP:GNG: Uniradio Informa, Vice, Yahoo, El Pitazo, 24 Horas, Iberoeconomía, La Prensa, El Gráfico. Yes, most of the sources are in Spanish, but they also come from different countries, including Mexico, the United States, Spain and Honduras, respectively, and among others, besides from Venezuela.

Contrary to what the nominator suggests, her notability also comes from her awards in the industry: Being listed as a Penthouse Pet in February 2021, her an AVN Award, and nominations in both said awards and the PornHub Awards, as well as being featured on the cover of magazines. The AVN Awards are on of the most important awards in the pornographic industry, and with all the awards and recognitions the biography should meet WP:ENT. Her undergraduate paper is only an interesting part of her biography and how it is related to her current job, but notability has not been argued based on it. -NoonIcarus (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The usual non-notability of porn actors brought here, rests on things that are no longer used as criteria such as being a Penthouse Pet or an winning an AVN Award. Zaathras (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as ~~an NENT pass~~. I believe coverage in out-of-universe, reliable sources is the thing to look for in adult entertainer bios, and this one has enough. GQ Italia, El Pitazo, and El Estímulo (the 2020 article) are sufficiently in-depth. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the advice at WP:VENRS on the latter two. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC) striking and typo fix 15:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still a Keep on this, but I was incorrect to call the article an NENT pass. The sources are sufficient to pass WP:NBASIC. I'm not sure the Delete !voters have presented any PAG-based reasons to invalidate the sourcing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing here is not actually enough to pass our actual inclusion criteria for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep, awards and coverage show that she's notable. 89.139.131.44 (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC) — 89.139.131.44 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

So what? I'm not a registered user, but I made hundreds of edits even this year; my IP is not a constant one. 89.139.131.44 (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such a claim is not verifiable, hence the tag. Zaathras (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what? There is no h-index here, we are not in academia; number of edits also doesn't give you any higher rank or position. Both voices, yours and mine, should be counted as equal, even if you don't think so. You can dislike unregistered users, but I'm no vandal and don't like to be treated as one. 89.139.131.44 (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to be considered like an actual person and not a random number that could be anyone or no one at any given time, feel free to register an account. Otherwise, your "vote" and subsequent replies are the totality of your Wikipedia contributions, nothing else exists. Zaathras (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's because of users like you I prefer to be anonymous. The fact that you made 1000 or ten thousands edits doesn't give you any rights or superiority, you are not an admin if I'm not mistaken. 89.139.131.44 (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an user that is voting to keep the article, I also advise you to create an account. It gives you more credibility in the community, and it is actually more anonymous than your IP address, which can tell your geolocation. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passing the GNG per Firefangledfeathers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per sources identified by Firefangledfeathers. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:47, 31 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 Crondall. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Park Golf Club[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG; not notable just because it exists WP:ORGSIG ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Golf and England. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 17:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Defunct run-of-the-mill leisure facility for which it appears that the only available sources are directory entries and routine coverage. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added sources. I think there is enough here to pass WP:GNG. Run of the mill is not a valid reason for deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources added are obviously not significant coverage – textbook WP:REFBOMBing. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the very least, the contents should be merged to Crondall as an alternative to deletion. NemesisAT (talk) 11:21, 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!} 20:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With Get Golfing Not Golfing, with little/no SIGCOV and no grounds for notability presented, there is no reason to include this defunct facility in WP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Apparently, from forums/social media postings, it will reopen having been bought by 360 Golf Ltd. in June, but the fact I can't find a reliable source for this on the web only seems to confirm lack of notability. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any sourced material into Crondall, delete the rest. JimKaatFan (talk) 01:26, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 07:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Bia[edit]

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

Socialite, club promoter and Olivia Rodrigo's boyfriend. Notability is not inherited from a partner, but that's pretty much all we have to get past WP:GNG, which this article, tagged for notability since May, lacks any evidence that its subject meets. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Non-trivial coverage in Elle [85] and here from Cosmo Middle East: [86]. A Forbes contributor piece from before he med Rodrigo [87] and a thing in GQ [88]. Pains me to keep articles on minor celebrities, but I think we have GNG. He received traction as a DJ before Rodrigo, so he's got a decent amount of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd quibble about Cosmo Middle East, a license deal and certainly question Forbes Sites, a non-RS. And Elle is asking 'Who is Olivia Rodrigo's boyfriend?' which is notability inheritance, no? GQ, fine, but I think you're being, well, kind, Monsignor... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really trying to find quality sources. I won't complain if it gets deleted either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciated - and in today's world, the charge of kindness is sort of not the worst of things! ;) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I-d magazine, seems independent [89] Oaktree b (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...and yet it is an interview, comprised largely of the subject talking about himself. I'm also underwhelmed by RS articles credited to "staff." It's a vague enough definition that it can be either legitimate coverage or promotional without revealing one way or another. It is worth noting, though, that a quick perusal of the site reveals most articles on I.D. Magazine are credited writers with bylines. The few credited to "staff" tend to be content pulled from other sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Unhappy to weigh in with a keep -- I'm with Oaktree b on the minor celebrity thing -- but he (just barely) meets GNG. The Complex references are solid, as is GQ. There's a photo feature in Interview, references from WWD (questionable reliability) and brief mentions in the New York Times [90], the LA Times [91],and others that I accessed through the Wikipedia library. Not suggesting those refs demonstrate notability, but they do suggest it. JSFarman (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the sourcing isn't great, it is there and, with 22,000 pageviews over the last month, the page is clearly of value to our readers which to me is an important factor. NemesisAT (talk) 10:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as even the "weak keep" voters pointed out, sourcing is extremely weak. Whole article reeks of self-promotion. At the very least, it's WP:TOOSOON. I don't see "Complex" as a reliable source - it looks like a website built to promote products under a thin veneer of "reporting" lifestyle "news". It's certainly not journalism and appears to have minimal editorial control. In other words, it looks like a site that would take money from Zack Bia in exchange for promoting him. Wes sideman (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just checked a moment ago, still no new sources for Bia found. Same as last time. Oaktree b (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has a record label that has notable artists signed and developed, as well as being a recognized DJ and and club promoter in the Los Angeles socialite scene, before Olivia Rodrigo stepped into his personal life. RodeoWrld (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which one of those things is justification for keeping? "record label that has notable artists signed and developed" - notability is not inherited. "being a recognized DJ and and club promoter in the Los Angeles socialite scene" - where's the sources that say that? "Olivia Rodrigo stepped into his personal life" - you must be joking. None of those reasons are valid. Wes sideman (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete it seems to be WP:TOOSOON. I found several sources such as Us Magazine, Elle and... but I am not sure if they are enough or not. —Natalie RicciNatalie 10:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Almost inclined to say WP:TOOSOON as well, but the sources that are there seem to meet GNG. Feels like a tough one though since there aren't any new sources in almost a month.--Littehammy (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The only previous responses were to keep. Despite relisting twice, nobody has taken any interest in arguing otherwise. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Lagrone[edit]

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

Evaluating the page under WP:CRIMINAL, I cannot see that this case is fit for coverage on Wikipedia. The guideline begins: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person (emphasis original). There is no such article, so let's move on.

Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: either The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure (not true here; these are low-profile victims) or The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.

A WP:BEFORE shows not much more than Haunted Spy has found and included: routine coverage about the initial killings, rapes and trial, and a small amount of coverage when Lagrone was executed. It seems Lagrone never confessed, the motive was not "unusual" or "noteworthy" (however evil it was) and nor was the method. — Bilorv (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, United States of America, and Texas. — Bilorv (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject appears to be notable enough and has coverage from 1977, 1991, 1993, and 2004. Inexpiable (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 01:54, 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 Vinland. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Vinland (1010)[edit]

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

Same rationale as the AFD for Battle of Vinland (1003). No decent sources and the date looks like OR. Unbh (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Canada. Unbh (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no reason to delete this, it has a primary source and the article is well written, even though it's a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsaacIdawg91 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem, the sole source is Primary - there's no secondary literature discussing the battle at all, most likely because it's description as such is an invention of this wikipedia page. There are no other references in RS to any "Battle of Vinland" - what's being described is a skirmish in a saga, that's been given an OR date. It should be redirected the Vinland article. Unbh (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not independently notable from the main article, fails WP:GNG. Merge to there. Curbon7 (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just redirect to Vinland for the reasons given under the 1010 article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow time for further discussion, including redirect vs merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vinland, as per Battle of Vinland (1003). Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:03, 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 List of Heroes characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Parkman[edit]

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

After a BEFORE, topic lacks any significant coverage in reliable sources. Consider redirecting to List of Heroes characters. ––FormalDude talk 01:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. ––FormalDude talk 01:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Fully support such a move, per my PROD ([92]). Similar action is needed for most characters from that show. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Heroes characters. Matt Parkman Sr. is referenced throughout but does not actually have a section there. Creating a section from the contents of this article would be an improvement. ~Kvng (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The topic lacks sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as missing enough sources to meet the WP:GNG. If someone wants to WP:PRESERVE any further information that can be continued through ordinary editing. Jontesta (talk) 19:12, 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 White Wizzard. I know that this decision doesn't have full support here but I'm going with a redirect as an alternative to deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will Wallner[edit]

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

nothing to indicate notability. autobiography created by the musician himself. -- FMSky (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. FMSky (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What on earth is this doing on Wikipedia and how has it survived for ten years? Fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to "White Wizzard" article; most of the sources I find mention him in connection with the band. Oaktree b (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He is one of those journeymen who hang around the edges of the music biz, temporarily helping bands with tours long after their glory days, or forming short-lived projects that get no notice, or serving as an on-call session musician. He has some business ventures too but they follow the same patterns. None of the above have generated any reliable media notice, he is only visible in his own promotions, and this WP article is clearly intended to be more of the same. Also, I disagree with the last voter on redirecting to White Wizzard because Wallner was only with them for two brief and temporary sojourns, much like everything else he's done. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:27, 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 Procedural close. This article should be renominated to a new AFD if editors believe it should be deleted.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar Kaiser[edit]

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

AfD fot Gunnar Kaiser. Has been deleted 4 times just in 2020 at his home .de Wikipedia and finaly has been locked. Not notable - https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spezial:Logbuch&page=Gunnar_Kaiser

Dcddiegxo1e3d (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Malformed nom from 2020 that was never transcluded to a logpage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 01:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Politics, and Germany. jp×g 03:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough publications even for .de Wikipedia. --Nuuk (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close; this went to a real discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunnar Kaiser (2nd nomination). Anyone can renominate if they wish. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:20, 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 speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ATK Mohun Bagan FC[edit]

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

Redundant page created with false information to create vandalism. The original page is Mohun Bagan AC. This page must be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAmPushpak (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Malformed AfD nomination from 2020 that was never transcluded to a logpage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 01:10, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Euro TV Moldova[edit]

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

Only one sentence and no sources or references.--E789999 (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Malformed AfD from 2020 that was never added to daily logpage
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 01:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Moldova. jp×g 03:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for now, unless some subject-area editor can dig up sources. The article itself is extremely low-quality (one sentence and completely unsourced); a search turns up nothing for me. There are at least a few search results, so it's not an obvious slam dunk, and I imagine more could be found by someone who spoke the applicable language. jp×g 17:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, I cannot find anything which assists in establishing notability either, fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:30, 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!} 06:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GoodLife Channel[edit]

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

Two sentences and nothing else --E789999 (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Malformed nomination from 2020 that was never transcluded onto a daily logpage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 01:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite this AfD being created in 2020 (!), the article still consists entirely of two uncited sentences. The fact that a TV channel existed from 2006 to 2009, in and of itself, does not seem to indicate notability. News results are uninspiring (a single result, which doesn't look like a reliable source to me). Even a normal search returns basically nothing except for Wikipedia mirrors. jp×g 03:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Romania. jp×g 03:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I an also unable to locate any references which could be used to establish notability, topic fails NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 11:31, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Holiday at the Sea EP[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG, the article is unsourced and a search brought up no reliable secondary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Michigan. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:03, 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 speedy delete for lacking any evidence of significance (criterion A7). XOR'easter (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Jupiter Station[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A BEFORE search did not turn up anything beyond the job listings/database records/etc. that you always find for companies. Fails GNG and NORG. House Blaster^talk 00:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and California. House Blaster^talk 00:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article that was previously deleted at this location was about a station in the world of Star Trek, not this company. House Blaster^talk 00:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note I've speedy deleted the article under CSD#A7. There was zero evidence of significance.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:31, 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.