< July 23	July 25 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Farrah Sarafa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was nominated at AfD in 2011, but never linked from a daily log page, never fully opened and never formally closed. Per the procedural close note yesterday recommending a new nomination be made, here is what that original nomination said:

The article 'Farrah Sarafa' was nominated for deletion in January 2011, but no consensus was reached. I strongly believe it should remain under consideration for deletion. Please note that I was not part of the original nomination or discussion.

Upon consideration of Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines for biographies, I hold that the person in question does not adequately meet the standard.

For instance: According to the cited links, Farrah Sarafa is a graduate student who contributes to 'various publications'- sources include a link to several articles for a single website ( Green & Save.com) as well as a work released through "Shadowpoetry.com"- a self-publishing website. The article also claims that Ms. Sarafa has won 'a number of awards and prizes for her poetry.' The only awards cited are (1) a college poetry award (Hopwood) for a contest that is only open to University of Michigan students and (2) a "second place" poetry award in a competition by a small specialty publisher, Chistell Publishing (http://www.chistell.com/company.htm).

I feel that the article and its links establish that "Farrah Sarafa" is: an adjunct professor, a freelance writer and magazine contributor- but not that this person is particularly distinguished within any of these creative fields. This said, the subject does not adequately merit its own article.

This just isn't a very good article. It wasn't a very good one then, and it still isn't one. I do not see anything that passes WP:NPROF, and running a magazine that "underscores industry pioneers" is not WP:GNG. jp×g 23:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did completely rewrite the article in the past 48 hours, so I just want to verify if you saw that. I'm not saying that my changes established notability, I'm undecided, but I think every aspect of it has been rewritten to cut the PROMO CT55555 (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

she is associate professor at pace university, not adjunct and published her thesis on Algerian women and colonialism in addition to a chapbook with shadow poetry. she won free publication by shadow, and did not self publish the chapbook. Her poems have also been extensively referenced, and have been published in various literary journals and anthologies as well. Hope this helps ! some info in the rewrite is a bit limiting quite inaccurate George2 Hanawi (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i agree that the rewrite is poorly written... it was much better before George2 Hanawi (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider if the reason that you don't like my rewrite is that the pervious version was too promotional? CT55555 (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Poetry, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not remotely near passing WP:GNG, WP:Prof or WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I could not find on the Pace website about the title given to Sarafa. Outside her own linkedin profile there is no evidence she is a full professor at Pace university. The reference used to justify she is a professor at Pace is not conclusive. JamesKH76 (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not had a proper look yet, but I'm leaning delete. Definitely doesn't pass WP:NPROF. Are there any significant independant reviews to warrant a pass under WP:NAUTHOR? -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUTHOR is the only way I think she can pass. Some has suggested the book is self published. Anyway, here's the book reviews I could find, I put effort in to find them:
1. https://web.archive.org/web/20160814115848/http://www.arabesques-editions.com/journal/sarafa_farrah/index.html - brief mention
2. https://issuu.com/chaldeannews/docs/cn0906_0152 Interview, not a very well known source, just a few sentences
3. https://www.midwestbookreview.com/mbw/jun_06.htm Despite the website appearance, seems to be a credible reviewer of poetry, but not exactly the New York Times. Significant review, but not very significant.
My analysis: borderline. I think it's possible to argue that this all adds up to a total of two book reviews, and yet I have been told I'm wrong on stronger examples, so I'm left unsure on this one, hence the lack of opinion from me so far. CT55555 (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears that her book has just about enough reviews to pass WP:NBOOK. A sensible alternative to deletion might be a redirect to a stub on the book. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say if the book is the only thing connected to her that has any notability, we do not need an article on her and on the book, so one article covering both would be enough. With a redirect from the other. Probably from her to the book.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  If you had to chose between her most notable book, I'd suggest her:
  1. BLP articles are held to a higher standard, which is a good thing
  2. There is not a lot of info about the book, more about her CT55555 (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Russ Woodroofe, NBOOK requires multiple reviews, but I see only the Midwest Book Review, with the other two links above not even close to counting (the first links to her own profile on a website; the second just promotes her book without any review, and anyway is discounted entirely since her father is the president of the association generating the newsletter, and furthermore appears to be in a submit-your-own-news section of a hyper-hyperlocal newsletter per the "share your news" box at the bottom). JoelleJay (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, nope, the MBR piece isn't a valid review either: it's in the "MBR Bookwatch" section which, unlike "The Bookwatch" and other MBR magazines, is run by "senior MBR volunteers", making it essentially UGS/SPS.

Book reviews in the MBR Bookwatch and the Reviewer's Bookwatch, and in the "Story Monsters Ink Shelf" of the Children's Bookwatch, are written by volunteer reviewers. Each volunteer retains copyright and full ownership of all his or her reviews. All other book review magazines, and all other columns of the Children's Bookwatch, are written "in-house" by the MBR and associates. JoelleJay (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet NPROF or any other notability guideline. JoelleJay (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little sign of WP:NPROF. With only one book, WP:NAUTHOR is unlikely, and I agree with JoelleJay's analysis of the reviews linked from the article. It has been commented in past deletion discussions that NAUTHOR is difficult to establish for poets, but I'm not seeing much progress towards it. Comment that many of the references that I can find appear to date to the subject's student years -- while notability is not temporary, I don't think these references add up to a pass of any of our criteria. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Does not meet WP:NPROF, and whilst there is a bit of coverage, not convinced meets WP:NAUTHOR. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:32, 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. Per WP:NPOL, "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are assumed to be notable. The article cites what could well be such coverage, and this AfD completely fails to discuss it. For lack of a well-informed discussion, I can determine no consensus here. Sandstein 20:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arfanul Haque Rifat[edit]

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

Contested PROD; Non-notable local politician. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Curbon7 (talk) 21:47, 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!} 20:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mayor of Comilla isn’t a notable position, and adding some dodgy claims about drugs doesn’t really strengthen the case. Mccapra (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the mayors have been elected from a larger area than the honourable Member of Parliament, I think it would be appropriate to keep the article Moreover, Mayors of city corporations are equivalent to state minister. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrksmp (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom Non-notable local politician does not meet GNG.93.189.6.34 (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Comilla is the fifth largest city in Bangladesh, with a population of more than half a million. It is not just some small town. That being said the article is in pretty bad shape.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per List of cities and towns in Bangladesh, it's the 9th, but your point is fair enough. Curbon7 (talk) 03:25, 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 11:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decadent Evil II[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. No published reliable and independent sources, except IMDb which is not a reliable source. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found two reviews so it technically passes NFILM, but I think that this could be just as well served by a selective merge into the article for the first film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:16, 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!} 22:09, 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!} 20:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems not notable. Andrevan@ 21:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please consider merge option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wait. There's a lap-dancing vampire movie? There's more than one? No reason this material can't nest inside the previous film's page, which could use any help it can get. This film doesn't appear it was notable even on release. BusterD (talk) 00:41, 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!} 21:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Science and Technical College, Ahoada[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal Government College, Ganye there is consensus to delete these mass created articles on non notable schools. However this one already had a PROD reverted so I’m bringing to AfD. This is one of a run of mass created stubs about non notable schools. Mccapra (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 19:42, 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!} 20:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google does not provide important links and resources on this topic. There is no information about the establishment, professorship, areas of educational training, educational programs of the corresponding institution of higher education. According to my reserches, the article doesn`t meet either WP:NCOPR nor WP:GNG. --Bigneeerman (talk) 06:02, 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!} 21:43, 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!} 21:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Government Girls College, Kazaure[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal Government College, Ganye there is consensus to delete these mass created articles on non notable schools. However this one already had a PROD reverted so I’m bringing to AfD. This is one of a run of mass created stubs about non notable schools. Mccapra (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG: nothing more than trivial mentions and the usual primary sources on the Internet, and even the article on the area in which this school is situated is very poorly sourced. BilletsMauves (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd and dePROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 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!} 21:43, 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!} 21:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Government College, Kwali[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal Government College, Ganye there is consensus to delete these mass created articles on non notable schools. However this one already had a PROD reverted so I’m bringing to AfD. This is one of a run of mass created stubs about non notable schools. Mccapra (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 19:38, 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!} 20:32, 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!} 21:43, 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!} 21:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Government Girls College, Ikot Obio-Itong[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal Government College, Ganye there is consensus to delete these mass created articles on non notable schools. However this one already had a PROD reverted so I’m bringing to AfD. This is one of a run of mass created stubs about non notable schools. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 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!} 20:31, 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!} 21:43, 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 redirect to This One's Gonna Hurt You. (non-admin closure) Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Baby (Marty Stuart song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. Only barely charted, no reviews found. Redirect undone because apparently "permastub" is not a reason to redirect. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to This One's Gonna Hurt You. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows some mentions in various magazines. SBKSPP (talk) 23:01, 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!} 21:40, 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 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 00:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dum-Doodles[edit]

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

Apart from a bit of local press, cannot find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Comics and animation, and Webcomics. Netherzone (talk) 18:53, 24 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!} 21:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meghlal Mahato[edit]

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

The only coverage in reliable sources describes his single climb of Mount Everest in 2012, which nowadays is itself a fairly weak claim to notability. Seems to fail WP:NBIO and possibly WP:BLP1E. This article was previously PRODded for notability concerns, but the PROD was contested without improvement. ComplexRational (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ComplexRational (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 07:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant contribution. News of climbing Everest are just a press release. nirmal (talk) 01:33, 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 no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alen Amedovski[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA. Never previously appeared in a Sherdog top 10, and his highest ranking by Fight Matrix is 180th. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and North Macedonia. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate coverage of subject in Italian language media [1][2][3][4] HeinzMaster (talk) 01:42, 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!} 17:04, 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!} 21:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 21:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faraz Haider (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Fails notability and SIVCOG. Most refs are interviews only _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 18:16, 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!} 17:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pakistan. ––FormalDude talk 17:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions, anyone?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Hing Wen[edit]

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

I believe that the sources present and the ones that I could find aren't enough to establish WP:GNG. They're either listicles, blogs, or interviews. Some of the better sources (SCMP, Bloomberg, anything about the possible film production) are more so about the book rather than the author. A lot of the primary info comes from her personal/publisher sites. And I do not believe that the current scope of her work would justify WP:AUTHOR. (She is a NYTimes Best Seller for her first book, Loveboat Taipei, however that doesn't appear to be enough for notability) BriefEdits (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, California, and Ohio. BriefEdits (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Seems like at best a detailed fan article that might be WP:TOOSOON and at worst a promotional author bio per WP:PROMO. — BriefEdits (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her debut novel Loveboat Taipei seems to be notable. We could move the page to that title and rework it a bit, but I don't think it's necessary. pburka (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR - She has a second book (reviewed by Kirkus), and the bestseller list for her first book, as well as the film, support the significance and/or that it is well-known. Multiple reviews of her first book include Kirkus, Asian Review of Books. Beccaynr (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the WP Library, I found reviews for LoveBoat, Taipei from Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books (Jan2020, Vol. 73 Issue 5, p234), School Library Journal (Jan2020, Vol. 66, Issue 1), Booklist (Dec2019, Vol. 116 Issue 7), AudioFile (Apr/May2020, Vol. 28 Issue 6, Gale), BookPage (Jan 2020, via Gale), and an appearance in Children's Bestsellers / JAN. 5-11, 2020 from Publishers Weekly (via Gale). Beccaynr (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did some edits to improve the article a bit, more work is needed, probably editing down the trivia and for brevity, certainly more citations are needed. Despite the flows, notability is established by Beccaynr above. CT55555 (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources suggest that either she or her book are notable enough for an article but not both; as there is a second book on the way, part of the same book deal, it is tidier to stick to having an article on the author, to which both titles can redirect. Seems to be enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, though the "personal life" section has been unsourced since article creation in 2020, which suggests possibilit of a COI creation - though it went through AfC so should be sound. PamD 08:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've made redirects from both book titles. PamD 08:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: If anything, I believe that it should be the other way around (author and sequel links to the first book) but it is a safer route to keep the author article and consolidate works on her page until it's time to create individual book pages. I still believe that the bar for an author article for one notable work should be higher than a body of work because it's difficult to say whether or not the author's notability is purely derived from that one work, therefore rendering the author article pointless. But for now, I can live with the compromise of redirecting to the author's page. — BriefEdits (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NAUTHOR due to multiple independant reviews of her work. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I still believe that the breadth and depth of coverage of the author proper is not at the point to justify her own article as the amount of information present could just be integrated into a "Development" section or "Production" section in the book's article. — BriefEdits (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know and have worked with Abigail and can’t see why this page has been marked for deletion. There are manifold available references for the facts stated, eg https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/artificial-intelligence/podcast-episodes/artificial-intelligence-podcast-episode-0.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdelevett (talk • contribs) 16:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the consensus here seems to be to keep the article. Also note that keeping or deleting is not about anyone's perceptions about accuracy, inclusion on wikipedia is about notability (we write articles about famous people, not everyone). For more details, click here ---> WP:GNG If you know her, then you may have a conflict of interest, or bias, and I'd recommend switching into observation mode here. As almost everyone here is saying we should keep the article, it's likely that we will. CT55555 (talk) 17:50, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Nazir[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG WP:ANYBIO. All sources are passing mentions only. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 16:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bibliographies, and Film. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 16:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 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!} 21:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV, passing mentions in sources. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 21:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss of a Siren[edit]

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

A short film that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NFILM, as its only claim to notability in the article is winning an award at a minor film festival. Searching for sources turned up a lot of PR pieces or listings in film databases, but I could not find any actual reviews from reliable sources, or non-PR coverage that was more than a brief mention. Neither the creator of the film nor the company that produced it are notable themselves, so there is no valid target I could find for a potential merge. I am bringing it to AFD rather than simply WP:PRODing it, in case anyone else is able to have better luck than I in finding some actual non-PR coverage of it. Rorshacma (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Fashion. Rorshacma (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment I found this[5], which confirms the awards and should count towards notability. Not really enough on its own though. Artw (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think that is actually just a repost of an official description/press release rather than a piece of genuine coverage - the exact same text appears on multiple other sites as well. Rorshacma (talk) 16:59, 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!} 21:37, 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 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!} 21:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On Foot Through Gulag Land[edit]

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

Article about a documentary film series, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NFILM. As usual, films aren't automatically notable enough for Wikipedia just because they exist, and must be shown to have some credible and properly sourced evidence of their significance -- but the only notability claim being made here is existence, the only "sourcing" being shown is the director's own self-published content on his own website and YouTube, and the article's been flagged for lacking sources since 2016 without ever having any sources added.
As I can't read Hungarian, I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody who can read Hungarian can find the sourcing needed to salvage it, but it can't stick around another five years without any sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Hungary. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 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!} 15:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not a Magyar, but I'm seeing at least a claim by the filmmaker that the film won some national awards, including from the Ministry of Defense. I'm seeing some evidence of awards being given as early as 2002 within Hungary, but I'm not competent enough to find digitized Hungarian print media that may have covered the film. Tehran Times says it's a longstanding international film festival, but I honestly don't have enough expertise in this area to say whether this satisfies WP:NFILM#3 or not. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:58, 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!} 21:35, 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 Draftify.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Aihie[edit]

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

Only passing mentions in sources, does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV Hughesdarren (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nomination. No significant sources are listed. StartOkayStop (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no appropriate sources coming up on Google, Wayback, or other databases. Does not meet any other criteria. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:51, 17 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) 08:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:CREATIVE is satisfied if someone plays a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known piece of work. She appears to be the writer for two notable pieces of work, so if she is, that seems to make her meet criterion 3 twice. I said "comment" rather than "strong keep" because I see three deletes and I am not skilled in Nigerian source assessment. Can anyone comment on the quality of the sourcing? Is that why people above voted delete? CT55555 (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Africa maintains an Africa Sources List and Wikiproject Nigeria has suggestions at WP:NGRS. Beccaynr (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article sourcing is from quality and reliable sources according to the lists on WP:NGRS. Aderiqueza (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*::::Keep, based on her co-creation of two well-known pieces of work and the assertion above that the sources are reliable. CT55555 (talk) 11:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This articles was created as part of an edit-a-thon training new editors to contribute to African-cinema related content on Wikipedia organized by the institution where I am currently Wikipedian in Residence. I noticed from the event dashboard that this article was created by a new editor who should learn more and should be encouraged. I have advised and cautioned them and other participants. We have earlier warned about mere mentions and taught about many of what is being violated here.

We may move this to draft rather than delete if it is considered for deletion. Thanks for keeping up Wikipedia's standards. Danidamiobi (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The article includes the generally unreliable source BellaNaija (per WP:NGRS) and WP:IMDB (per WP:RSP), which should be removed. Several sources appear to be recycled press releases or otherwise nonindependent announcements of On the Real (National Daily, The Nation, Tribune The Guardian), instead of independent reviews or other reporting or commentary after its release that could help support notability. However, the context of how she is discussed in Pulse indicates the potential for notability to be further supported in the future. Beccaynr (talk) 02:34, 24 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!} 21:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I scored out my keep as my vote hinges on the quality of the sources, which I'm unsure about and relying on others. I find the argument to drafity convincing and seems like a good WP:ATD CT55555 (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify may be TOOSOON BIG BURLEY 17:14, 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!} 21:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nacht voller Angst[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a film whose basic existence I can't even verify on the google. The only notability claim here is that it was once screened "to a selected audience", which is not an automatic free pass over WP:NFILM in the absence of any WP:GNG-worthy sourcing — it could mean absolutely anything from a proper film festival to a backyard video party for mom and dad and uncle Gunther, so it means nothing without reliable sources to support it, but there's absolutely no notability-building sourcing here and none is turning up on a web search either. For added bonus, not only does the film not have any IMDb profile at all that I've been able to locate, absolutely nobody named in the article's cast or crew has an IMDb profile as an individual either, so it's hard to tell whether this is a WP:HOAX or just a minor non-notable student or amateur film that doesn't clear the notability bar.
As I can't read German, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who can read German can actually locate some evidence of notability that I've missed -- but this has been tagged for sourcing problems since 2011, so it can't just sit around unsourced anymore no matter what. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Germany. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The selected audience is pretty vague. It could be either a selection of newspaper critics or a couple of friends in a hallway somewhere. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this isn't a hoax, it's at the bare minimum something that is extremely non-notable, something a couple of friends created together. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I can't find anything at all that isn't a mirror either, so I think this is a hoax. matt91486 (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Editors are encouraged to add some of the sources indicated in this discussion to the article to prevent renomination in the neat future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 23:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Lead (EP)[edit]

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

Does not come close to meeting WP:NALBUM. ––FormalDude talk 06:21, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United Kingdom. ––FormalDude talk 07:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: I’m still new here, but I have noticed that there’s other articles that don’t have a chart and only have criticism, and only uses either one or two references. If we need to add charts or something, we gotta wait until there’s some sort of charting happening. - JuanGLP (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI moved this to draft because it did not meet notability requirements. Now its back in main space with no attempt at improvement. Fails WP:NALBUM. See WP:OSE for why other articles have no bearing on this discussion. Slywriter (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The album was only released the day before the nomination, so it is likely that more reviews will come in. That's because it already has a robust pro review from the reliable Complex (currently footnote #1 in the article) and its upcoming release was noted by the reliable NME: ([6]). Here's another possibility, those I am unsure about this one's reliablility: ([7]). The current version of the article is too dependent on sources that are about things the group did in the past, but get rid of those and the album already has enough sources of its own to justify at least a stub article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So it’s a keep? Because the EP does have reliable sources, since it has a Pitchfork review for the second single. - JuanGLP (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both appear to be interviews and do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Slywriter (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can do better than the word "appear", and if you read the sources in their entirety then say so. Are they interviews or not? The sources mentioned in my vote are partially interviews, used as background, but also include independent analysis by the journalist. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they are junk and do not meet in-depth, significant coverage. Slywriter (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Complex- 1 paragraph on band, then 3 paragraphs of interview and closes with a fluff line that lacks any analysis.

NME- Intro that adds nothing, next paragraph is a rehash of the Instagram post included, next para the 5 songs included, 4 paragraphs of interview.

End result, zero indication of notability for the album itself. Slywriter (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One thing missing from your analysis is why one paragraph of description is not enough. It could be a very descriptive paragraph. Also, the "no interviews" guideline is for sources that are entirely interviews of the softball variety, and lots of interviews are critical and analytical, and an interview can be just a portion of a journalistic article. I'm willing to consider that a matter of differing opinions on the sources already discussed here. Regardless, it is not very difficult to find additional sources that add useful information about the album, such as: [8], [9], [10], [11]. The album article may have been created a little too early, but when information starts to come in, the WP:HEYMANN standard allows us to conclude that it's not July 7th anymore. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What was presented previously came nowhere close to meeting WP:HEYMANN. There may be something in the latest presented but think proves notability of the group, not the album and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Merge would be a better outcome.Slywriter (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented above. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 16 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) 21:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This keeps getting relisted as if there is some insurmountable disagreement above. There was a disagreement 2.5 weeks ago when the article was created a few days too soon. In the lengthy period since the last person voted, the album has received even more in-depth reviews that can be added to the article: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. I can do that myself if anyone has the wherewithal to finally wrap this up. Editors may be discouraged from improving the article if it remains in this purgatory state for weeks and weeks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

doomsdayer520, I don't see agreement here or that the Delete votes have been transformed into Keep votes or that these editors have been convinced by your arguments. Sometimes relisting a discussion can bring in a few new voices that can tilt the discussion in one direction or the other. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - @Liz, that’s correct since there’s no further discussion about the article’s deletion, it should be kept in the mainspace. Yeah there’s no "critical reception", but @SBKSPP states that the article "meets WP:NALBUM with sources presented above" by @DOOMSDAYER520, with reliable sources. Also, it funny because there’s many debut EPs being created with only ONE source in the mainspace. Anyways, after the sources are added, anyone is allowed to remove the warning sign. - JuanGLP (talk) 03:01, 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 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!} 21:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nail Makhmutov[edit]

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

Appears to be puffery, does not meet WP:N standards DukhiDadiba (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One citation in GScholar, nothing else found. GNews has nothing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 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!} 21:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Hoeflich[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:45, 24 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) 17:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any detailed coverage under 'Joseph Hoeflich'. Also tried 'Joe Hoeflich' to no avail. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brouwer medalists affiliated with the Institute for Advanced Study[edit]

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

WP:SYNTH, sourced to two references addressing the Brouwer Medal in general and one primary source by the IAS itself. No coverage of the relationship between the two topics that I could find in a web search. Lastly, even if noteworthy, this can easily be included within the Brouwer Medal article. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Lists of people, Mathematics, and New Jersey. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization as discussed at WP:NLIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another meaningless cross-categorization Dronebogus (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that there is nothing encyclopedic to say about this intersection of categories. --JBL (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not our job to help the IAS public-relations office hype them up. XOR'easter (talk) 18:10, 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!} 21:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Bell (footballer, born 1992)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:39, 24 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) 17:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:41, 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!} 20:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Max Hoeflich[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:37, 24 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) 17:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mentioned in a reserve squad list in Fiji Football, which is obviously not good enough to count towards GNG by any stretch. Clear GNG fail. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:33, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yiu Hing[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:34, 24 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) 17:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find any significant coverage of a Samoan footballer of this name. Of course, there are plenty of hits for other topics and other people in the Sinophone world. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Driving licence in Spain[edit]

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

In the same way as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Driving licence in Brunei, this article falls under WP:NOTGUIDE, paragraph 9. Textbook example of a non-encyclopedic WP:CFORK.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (ie they fall under WP:NOTGUIDE, paragraph 9):

BilletsMauves^€500 16:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I cannot share your concerns. There’s no step-by-step guide or similar, and I don’t know of which article this should be a content fork of. National regulations regarding a driver’s license do differ among EU member states. ‑‑ K (🗪 | ✍) 17:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, for the reason I've given in relation to Brunei. The proper place to look for such information is the official document published by the relevant country. An encyclopaedia entry cannot reasonably be expected to be completely up to date. (The UK regulations have changed with Brexit: who can be certain that Albania hasn't modified its rules in the past week?) A single article might be OK, listing the countries, for each one giving a link to the official information, and perhaps making a brief mention of any unusual characteristics. Athel cb (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The few I've skimmed through don't feel like manuals. As long as the pages are being maintained, I think the information is useful for folks utilizing the site. Most people know to confirm with their local government, but for the casual reader or person doing research, navigating to a for country's motor vehicle page isn't ideal. Nearly every article on this site has the propensity to change on a whim, that's why there are editors and WikiProjects to try and stay on top of them. Lindsey40186 (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are 26 articles about Driving licence in countries in Europe. The nomination is about 8 of them. This shows the nomination is not about notability of the subjects, but of contents of these articles. We could modify them to match what User:BilletsMauves wants to have in them. We don't delete articles due to grammar faults, we improve them.--BIL (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as many sources write about the subjects. Up-to-date content should of course be checked with the relevant licencing authority, but our job is not that, it is to provide an encycopedic overview that should include history. For example my father, until he died at the age of 94 in 2004, had a UK driving licence although he never took a driving test - that was not required until some time in the 1930s. All of these articles can have similar sourced history added to them, so they should not be deleted, and I wish I had noticed the Brunei discussion because I would have said something similar there. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per above. Has evident potential encyclopedic value. Cheers, Dan the Animator 03:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, everything was already mentioned, so I do not need to repeat it all again. The artilces I took a look at are, in my opinion, not manuals or instructions. There are a lot more of articles about driving licences and I do not understand why only these were nominated for deletion and not all of them? It is better to improve articles and not instantly delete them. Only some articles, such as Driving licence in Albania, should be a bit better sourced. Best regards, Koreanovsky (talk) 15:08, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 in Japanese artistic gymnastics[edit]

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

No need for this article compilation. Looks to be fancruft if anything. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there any criterion failed? NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 11:28, 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 redirect to Alliance for Italy. The delete !voter makes a point that almost the entirety of the article was sourced to a blog and is therefore not cited to a reliable source. The remainder amounts to very little and so anyone wishing to reference the existing prose in the target can do so via the redirected article history. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance for Veneto[edit]

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

The page merely states that Alliance for Veneto was the Veneto regional section of Alliance for Italy and that it was led by Massimo Calearo. In practice, this party simply existed and nothing more. On the web it is almost impossible to find mentions of this party. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly, with the passing of time, it is difficult to find sources on an old minor party, but we should not be affected by recentism and value some contents that make Wikipedia great, precisely because it can gather information on little-known subjects, for the benefit of readers. The political party, along with Union for Trentino, was one of the regional parties associated with Alliance for Italy. for the sake of readers, it is better to have it as a stand-alone article. However, if it is not possible to keep it as I would like, an alternative (worse) solution would be to merge it with Alliance for Italy, in order to preserve the article's history, at least. --Checco (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Readers will not search for this page, they certainly won't notice it's missing. This partioto just existed, this does not make it encyclopedic: they are the rules of Wikipedia, the sources are essential, if there is no subject, it definitely does not deserve an article in its own right.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Alliance for Italy, given that this is a small regional section of the national party. No need of a separate article about it, given the little coverage that the regional section has – independently from the national one. Yakme (talk)
Delete - The article contains two primary sources (entries in Alliance for Italy's blog) and two secondary sources which do not cite "Alleanza per il Veneto" at all... The party's existence can be mentioned in Alliance for Italy, I don't see anything more to merge. P1221 (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Alliance for Italy, if it is not sustainable to keep the article in its current stand-alone form.--Autospark (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Alliance for Italy as ATD HighKing⁺⁺ 18:07, 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 delete. ✗plicit 14:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aosta Valley Nation[edit]

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

Tiny and unknown local party that got less than 200 votes in the 2013 general elections. The page is written in just two lines and only states that the party existed and that it participated in the 2013 general elections in the Aosta Valley constituency (with very bad results). Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. May do better as a nod on the List of political parties in Italy Lindsey40186 (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This political party was clearly a minor one, but, like many others, deserve an article of its own. More sources can be found. It participated to some elections, thus, if it is not possible to keep it as I would like, an alternative (worse) solution would be to merge it with 2013 Italian general election in Aosta Valley, in order to preserve the article's history, at least. --Checco (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What other elections has this party participated in? And with what results? A party does not deserve an article for the mere fact of having existed. 200 votes are not even enough to elect a municipal councilor in a minor municipality.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The party definitely does not have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, and does not appear to be relevant at all even for Valdostan politics. Yakme (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The party fails WP:GNG rules. With 145 votes obtained in a general election, it doesn't even deserve a mention in the article 2013 Italian general election in Aosta Valley. P1221 (talk) 12:52, 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 merge to Italian Democratic Socialists. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reformist Alliance[edit]

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

Small and unknown party, which existed for a few months with the sole purpose of joining the Democratic Party. The page is written in three lines and devoid of sources. At most it can be mentioned on the page of Ottaviano Del Turco. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is great especially when it gathers information on little-known subjects. This article could be easily merged to a larger one, but, for the sake of readers, it is better to have it as a stand-alone one. Indeed, that makes it easier to follow its political path. The Reformist Alliance was a political party and later a faction within the Democratic Party, as many others. This, like all of them, deserve an article of its own. It it is not possible to keep it as I would like, an alternative (worse) solution would be to merge it with Italian Democratic Socialists, in order to preserve the article's history, at least. --Checco (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I affirm the same thing also in this Afd: the Wikipedia rules do not state that even unknown or semi-unknown subjects have their own standalone article, notability is fundamental. As you say, this subject can easily be merged with another larger page (I think of Ottaviano Del Turco), and this above all in the sake of readers: certain information will certainly be read more easily in a more important article than in a standalone article like this one.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it has no sources at all backing its existence nor its relevance for WP. Might be completely made-up since information reported cannot be verified. Yakme (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ottaviano Del Turco - I added some sources to the article. Anyway, I think that this short-lived movement (it lasted just 6 months) doesn't deserve its own article. P1221 (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Italian Democratic Socialists, but also preserve the information at the article for Ottaviano Del Turco, the party's key figure.--Autospark (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I firmly believe that this grouping, originally a faction within the Italian Democratic Socialists and later a founding member of the Democratic Party, should have its own article, as explained above. Luckily enough, there are several hits for "alleanza riformista" + "ottaviano del turco" in Google (see here). If a stand-alone article is not possible, I would also accept a merger, but with Italian Democratic Socialists, not the leader Ottaviano Del Turco. --Checco (talk) 14:21, 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. ✗plicit 14:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

San Myo Oo[edit]

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

Does not look to pass WP:GNG based on the one database source in the article and sources located in a WP:BEFORE search. A Burmese language search yielded nothing more than Facebook and other self-published and therefore unreliable sources. Google News has the one passing mention in an Indonesian news source. DDG contains Blogspot and a bunch of social media sites. Given the complete lack of info and coverage about this footballer, I can't see a good reason for keeping this article. Doesn't even seem to pass the much lower bar at WP:SPORTCRIT #5. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:19, 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 13:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Styrian International[edit]

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

Tournament never held Stvbastian (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton and Austria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no possible redirect for this tournament. zoglophie 14:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tournament didn’t take place. As said above, I’m not sure where we would redirect to, and I’m not sure it would be worth it seeing as it never took place. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:23, 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 merge to Golden Grove, South Australia#Transport. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Grove Park & Ride[edit]

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

This is an article about a bus stop and an associated three-story car park. I kid you not. Races past other trivia to a fail of WP:GNG in stunning style. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as definitely not notable. Mccapra (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced content only to Golden Grove, South Australia under the Transport section. Park & rides are generally annexed to a bus/train station, so are usually not notable inherently. Ajf773 (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, and not worth merging. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Adelaide Metro#Interchanges as WP:ATD. It should also be noted in the community article as Afj noted, but generally non-notable transport are redirect up the way of the transport operator not the community it serves. Jumpytoo Talk 03:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Golden Grove, South Australia#Transport, which can be updated. Djflem (talk) 10:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seriously? A park & ride? No way this passes GNG, and I just don't see how this needs to be kept in any form. Mangoe (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A car park and a bus stop. No way this gets significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Independent notability is clearly lacking, and I don't even think this is relevant for the city article. Every city has parking garages; we don't have an article containing/listing every large parking garage in NYC, as far as I know. Ovinus (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This faciltiy was built by and is owned and operated by Adelaide Metro, the transporation agency for region. It's not "just" a P&R, but part of its comphresive intergrated bus system. https://www.adelaidemetro.com.au/using-adelaide-metro/park-n-ride Djflem (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have in this county alone some fifteen P&R, not counting the parking garages attached to each suburban Metro station. There's nothing remarkable about any single one of them. Mangoe (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who's "we" and which "county"? Unverifiable and useless info for a AfD, no? Djflem (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I've added an additional source and there is enough verifiable information here for a merge as an alternative to deletion. The nominator's statement and some of the votes above appear to just be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. NemesisAT (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've concerned that anything more than like a sentence would be WP:UNDUE at the target. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons stated above, I can't see how this topic can ever be sufficiently notable for a standalone article and the subnect matter in question I don't think is notable enough to be merged. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability refers to what deserves an article, not the content within articles. NemesisAT (talk) 19:59, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moshions[edit]

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

Rwandan "clothing store, fashion house and brand". Signally fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP, coverage is interviews, PR pieces, no evidence of notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Rwanda. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:06, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwini Rath[edit]

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

An article about a self-published poet. The Times of India review is not actually presented as a source here, and for good reason - the 'Micro Review' there is barely more than a passing mention - and in fact, other 'reviews' presented here make little to no contribution to notability. Quite apart from failing WP:NAUTHOR, we also fail WP:GNG - of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources", there is none. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Odisha. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parull Gossain[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, included sources lacking significant coverage & mostly amount to mentions. Source search has failed to turn up better refs. ASUKITE 05:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Film, India, and Maharashtra. ASUKITE 05:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with nom only passing mentions. Hughesdarren (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gossain is a noteworthy woman in Bollywood. She has been working for a decade. She has worked for many films. She has media presence on reliable resources like Hindustan Times and Times of India. I think she passes WP:GNG. Social-Informers (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oh, if only publicists were considered inherently notable! What a world that would be! Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Femke (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Abbavaram[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clear NACTOR pass: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films." Abbavaram played the lead role in four notable films–Raja Vaaru Rani Gaaru, SR Kalyanamandapam, Sebastian P.C. 524, and Sammathame. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NACTOR per Ab207's comment. DareshMohan (talk) 09:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a lead actor in multiple films. There are detailed articles/interviews on him in reliable sources beyond trivial mentions. Reo kwon (talk) 11:04, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Austria international footballers born outside Austria[edit]

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

As with List of Bahrain international footballers born outside Bahrain (AfD), List of Iran international footballers born outside Iran (AfD) and List of Norway international footballers born outside Norway (AfD), I fail to see how this list meets our inclusion criteria. Fails WP:LISTN due to lack of coverage on these individuals as a group or set and also violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and appears to be a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation. In other words, where is the evidence of detailed discussion regarding the birthplaces of Austria international footballers? It seems to me to be a trivial characteristic. Could be merged perhaps but I fail to see why this information is important as Wikipedia is not supposed to be an exhaustive collection of stats. Just because information can be verified by statistics databases doesn't mean that we absolutely need to have an article on it. By the same logic, we wouldn't have List of Austria international footballers taller than 1.80m even if such a list could be verified against databases. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, and Austria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and fails WP:NLIST. This is no different to the similar lists that have recently been deleted. Fats40boy11 (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just like the consensus in the other ones. LibStar (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no different to all the other ones which were deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per past AFD consensus; no evidence that this article is notable or worthwhile. Giant Snowman 15:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines Proton Dental (talk) 03:48, 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. (non-admin closure) Femke (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Simon[edit]

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

Article subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghiewag (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nomination fails to meet the relevant minimum standard for arguing a delete nomination. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Following up, here - subject seems perfectly notable to me and clearly passes WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notable sources found, seems to be mid-level local politician and lawyer. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, New York City is an extremely large an important city, to the extent that its City Councillors, and especially its Borough Presidents, are considered to pass WP:NPOL. In any case, a cursory search of newspapers.com finds plenty of non-routine coverage; take this in The Los Angeles Times, this in the New York Daily News along with tons of other coverage, this book extensively covers his re-election campaign in 1985 in the context of a challenge by José E. Serrano, and this was from an extremely brief search. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A New York City Councilor is almost always going to be notable, and newspapers.com backs this up, with a plethora of sources providing WP:SIGCOV. WP:OUTCOMES tends to be misused here, but it exists for this particular reason. Curbon7 (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable Andrevan@ 21:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Devonian Wombat and Curbon7. A solid WP:GNG pass. Sal2100 (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:POLOUTCOMES: "Municipal officers: City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable. But precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London." One more for precedent. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:50, 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!} 06:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Station, Indiana[edit]

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

All maps and aerials from before the Wabash abandonment show a wye interchange with no structures around it. It's a little difficult to search because of the Pine Station in PA (which also has an Indiana) but what I'm finding is a lot of RR-related passing mentions. The Pine Station Nature Preserve is nowhere near here; it's in Gary. Even without rails the old right-of-way is perfectly obvious, but it is entirely embedded in a forested area with no buildings anywhere. So, a NN rail spot. Mangoe (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. There doesn't appear to be a reliable source which says the subject exists, which is necessary for us to have an article. Furthermore GEOLAND only grants near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places, which this isn't, and without that it has to pass the GNG (and it clearly doesn't). The claim that there's a community there now definitely isn't true, satellites just show a patch of forest. Hut 8.5 19:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Wizart Animation. (non-admin closure) Femke (talk) 07:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

InlayFilm[edit]

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

WP:NCORP. Company is not notable; two of the four references are links to the company's own website, both of which are dead. There are little to no reliable, secondary sources about the company. StartOkayStop (talk) 05:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, and Russia. StartOkayStop (talk) 05:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing my formal vote - there is nothing to merge with Wizard Animation given it’s simply the old name. Would support a redirect. Delete - insufficient coverage to meet notability standard per WP:NCORP. MaxnaCarta (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the old name for Wizart Animation, which has a much more developed article. There's currently a Merge requiest from that article to this article, but I would suggest we either merge the other way or simply redirect to that article. Artw (talk) 15:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support a redirect. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Srap Shirinyan[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG as written, previously deleted on hy.wiki raising concerns about cross-wiki spam. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, and Armenia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:17, 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!} 04:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing anything substantive here (in either English or Armenian)—it's mostly just promotional/non-independent interviews in dubious sources. Shirinyan doesn't seem to have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, as far as I can tell. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:57, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Glasser[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR... bit parts only; no notable roles. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP As per WP:ENTERTAINER she played lead role some notable films. The article is surviving since 2006, and at that time Wikipedia has nothing about refs. AfD is not the option here. Need to expand, add resources. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 06:09, 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!} 03:56, 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!} 02:50, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Redirected to draft article (non-admin closure) Hughesdarren (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ganga Narayan Singh[edit]

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

Unsourced biography a better version is awaiting review at Draft:Ganga Narayan Singh. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comnment - There was a more complete article until 23 July, at which time the previous article was moved to draft space. The draft is more complete than this stub, and should be improved. It has serious tone problems, but those can be dealt with by editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian McConville[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, awards fall short of WP:ANYBIO. In addition to searching a thorough WP:BEFORE for McConville himself, I just spent the better part of 30 minutes looking for sources to establish notability for Three Panel Soul, a webcomic of McConville's that I like very much. I came up short, as the one example of really substantial coverage, which is cited at this page, sadly appears to be published as byline-less PR in an industry publication website ([17]). Even if I'm wrong about CBR, however, there just isn't enough coverage of McConville to meet GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Video games, Comics and animation, and Webcomics. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - there is insufficient evidence to prove that either of his webcomics are notable for the purpose of WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The lack of a byline is indeed odd, but the CBR review otherwise looks solid. There is also this article on Daily Dot. The WCCA wins establish further notability. I cannot confirm this, but it seems like the 2014 book Comics through time : a history of icons, idols, and ideas also mentions the author. The Slime Rancher credit through Vice is yet another point of notability. I believe notability is comfortably established. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The two things that worry me about the CBR coverage, on top of the missing byline, is that they openly solicit PR submissions and it's not marked as a "REVIEW: ", which seems to be the case for their (bylined!) critical coverage (e.g. [18], [19]). Another red flag is that despite being credited to "CBR Staff", the article is written in first-person singular, suggesting either a commissioned piece that the author did not want to take credit for or a pre-written PR statement that was published without oversight. Moreover, I don't think that CBR's coverage is enough to establish McConville's notability--if we have a consensus that CBR's coverage is ok to use, in my view that would license an article on Three Panel Soul, which could be a redirect target for Ian McConville, but we lack even the most basic biographic information about McConville himself and I don't think it's appropriate to write an article on him based on the coverage I have seen so far. I had come across the Daily Dot coverage in my prior search, and would consider that to also be coverage of TPS that provides no independent information about McConville (and rather little about TPS either, it's mostly about Alzheimer's). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For these reasons, I stand by my "delete". @Artw:, what do you say re: the site accepting PR submissions? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To any other user I'd say "CBR isn't a source is obvious nonsense" and to you I'd say "TPH has a widely recognised pattern of untruthfulness in order to bolster weak deletions and cannot be trusted on the assessment of any source." - I;d also direct you to your talk page. Artw (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you have extremely one-sided records at AfD and it's frankly tiring to see almost every AfD I come across get derailed into this same fight. Can we focus on the article for once? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting if somewhat misleading and point-missing metric. Here's you.[20] But to get back to this article: No I am not convinced by the argument that CBR isn't a source, nor am I convinced by the argument that deletion is the way to get to rearrange the content into a Three Panel Soul article that doesn't currently exist - deletion is the way to get to deleted articles. Just as I'm suspicious of novel arguments why a source doesn't count I am also not convinced by arguments that a source for a work inherently cannot be a source for it's creator - frequently they are both the same thing. That this kind of argument seems to mainly come up in hair splitting efforts to squeak a deletion makes me even more suspicious of it. Artw (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments aren't hair-splitting, they're a description of my WP:BEFORE process; as I'm actually familiar with the subject in question prior to coming across it on Wikipedia, I did a thorough search for every possible topic that could help eke out notability for the main subject at-issue here. In my view, my search came up short, so it behooves me to describe it here. I'm also not sure what you're hoping to show by invoking my AfD record--with an 85% match rate despite only coming to AfD when my NPP work brings me here, which means no pile-on votes to help pad my stats, I'm quite happy with my track record. If you think it outs me as a deletionist, take a look at the articles that I check off as reviewed that I don't bring to AfD. Behind the ~700 articles I've nominated for deletion are 10s of thousands of articles I've checked off as worthy of inclusion, and this is while exclusively working from the back of the queue that collects all of the difficult borderline cases that other reviewers have chosen to pass on. Quite frankly, if you think I'm a deletionist, you don't know who you're talking to. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mainly vote on articles I have researched and added sources to, for the most part when I have not added sources I comment or do not vote, so I am not sure what you are hoping to show by invoking *MY* AfD record. Maybe we should consider that tool a party trick instead of something useful, eh? Artw (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the record, Comic Book Resources is an extremely long standing comics news, reviews and commentary site that has won multiple Eisners and carried columns by top names in the industry. Dismissing it as a PR mill is shoddy work. Artw (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know you could se your AfD statistics like this; this is so cool, thank you!! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, merge in content re: Mac Hall and Three Panel Soul from Mac Hall. Artw (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Three-panel soul would probably be the most notable topic, as it receives more coverage from the reliable sources. However, it is minimal coverage nonetheless, and I fail to see why the author should warrant more of an article than his work.CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An article on an artist is often a good way to write about someone with multiple smaller credits, in my experience. His work on Mac Hall, Three Panel Soul, and Slime Rancher are all relevant to the same subject: himself. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTINHERITED, an artist is not necessarily notable because their works are notable, although in this case neither is true and you cannot combine notability from multiple works to form one article about all the works. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think INHERIT applies in the way you suggest it does. A book doesn't inherit notability from a notable author and an author doesn't inherit notability from a notable book. That sort of situation is covered in INHERIT. However, in this case, Mac Hall and Three Panel Soul are not notable, so it doesn't even make sense to suggest that McConville "inherits" notability from those. I'm saying that someone whose various projects have been covered by multiple sources is notable, even if we have relatively little biographical information. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have enough quality sources about the subject to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: less sniping, more policy based arguments please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All mentions and no substantive content with which we can write an article worthy of the subject. Mac Hall/Three Panel Soul doesn't work as a redirect target as that article is likely to be merged or deleted as well. These topics need more dedicated, reliable, secondary source coverage about the subject. czar 03:38, 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 23:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Oil Institute of Petroleum Management[edit]

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

This is admittedly a closer call that my other IIPM AfDs, but I still think it fails NCORP.

Created with templates ((ORGCRIT assess table)) and ((ORGCRIT assess))
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
Ref 1 (Indian Express	I think this counts, but it doesn't matter since I can't find any other sources	RSP
Ref 2 (company website)
Ref 3 (Golden Peacock Awards)			Directory listing with essentially no content actually about the organization
Ref 4 (The Hindu Business Line)			Article is only two sentences long and says nothing more than "IIPM has won this award"
Ref 5 (Accounting Theory)			No page number. Only relevant content I can find is "The Indian Oil Institute for Petroleum Management was selected for the Award for 'Best Innovation in Teaching' by the Association of Indian Schools on page 453
Ref 6 (The Hindu Business Line)			Same as Ref 4
Ref 7 (delnet.nic.in)			Directory listing with essentially no content actually about the organization
Ref 8 (discovery.bits-pilani.ac.in)			Directory listing with essentially no content actually about the organization
Ref 9 (TGFworld)			Directory listing with essentially no content actually about the organization
Ref 10 (The Tribune)			Brief mention that's little more than a catalog entry presented as the answer to a FAQ
Ref 11 (The Tribune)			Brief mention that's little more than a catalog entry
Ref 12 (U21Global)				Is on U21Global's own website, starts with "U21Global [...] recently announced".
Ref 13 (Moneycontrol)	Starts with "IOC recently announced ...", seems to be entirely based on content produced by the company.

So, in short, there's one source that, on a stretch, might meet NCORP criteria and a bunch of chaff, which just isn't enough for an article. I could not find any better sourced, only more namedrops and passing mentions. Oh, and the article was created in bad faith * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 02:35, 17 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pppery (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did a quick WP:BEFORE search and only found promotional sources. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:6D46:11D9:603A:BBE7 (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't believe the company could be near notable. A sentence can mention this in Indian Oil Corporation. SWinxy (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hawthorne Public Schools. czar 05:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Elementary School (Hawthorne, New Jersey)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability; does not meet WP:NSCHOOL. Elementary schools are not generally considered notable if they do not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NORG, which this does not. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 02:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, United States of America, and New Jersey. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 02:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hawthorne Public Schools, which is probably what should have been the initial solution here. Alansohn (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Hawthorne Public Schools. There's nothing to merge so a simple redirect works fine. It looks like the content of the article was copy-pasted from some high school's article since this article mentions the school being a high school, which it is not. It also doesn't serve grades 5-6, it serves grades K-5 like most other public elementary schools in the United States. Per WP:NSCHOOLS the article's subject needs to meet WP:GNG and it does not. - Aoidh (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hawthorne Public Schools as non-notable; I was considering nominating this myself after a WP:BEFORE turned up nothing meaningful. The copy-pasted content should also be revdel'd ASAP. I'm copying my comment from the other AfD, as both articles have exactly the same notability and copy-paste issues. ComplexRational (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect in lieu of merge to the accuracy issues raised with the text. Consensus is generally that elementary schools aren't sufficiently notable and a BEFORE identifies no exceptions in this case. Star Mississippi 14:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to the school district per all above. I'd suggest the nominator simply withdraw this and close it, then boldly just do the redirect. 174.212.229.93 (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hawthorne Public Schools Djflem (talk) 16:50, 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 redirect to Hawthorne Public Schools. czar 05:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt Elementary School (Hawthorne, New Jersey)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability; does not meet WP:NSCHOOL. Elementary schools are not generally notable unless they meet WP:NORG and/or WP:GNG, which this does not. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 02:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, United States of America, and New Jersey. >>> Ingenuity.talk(); 02:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hawthorne Public Schools, which is probably what should have been the initial solution here. Alansohn (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Hawthorne Public Schools. I'm copying my response at this other AfD because it's an identical situation. There's nothing to merge so a simple redirect works fine. It looks like the content of the article was copy-pasted from some high school's article since this article mentions the school being a high school, which it is not. It also doesn't serve grades 5-6, it serves grades K-5 like most other public elementary schools in the United States. Per WP:NSCHOOLS the article's subject needs to meet WP:GNG and it does not. - Aoidh (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hawthorne Public Schools as non-notable; I was considering nominating this myself after a WP:BEFORE turned up nothing meaningful. The copy-pasted content should also be revdel'd ASAP. ComplexRational (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to the school district per all above. I'd suggest the nominator simply withdraw this and close it, then boldly just do the redirect. 174.212.229.93 (talk) 16:29, 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. czar 05:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Keeling[edit]

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

Could not find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. All sources in article are connected to Keeling or his job. Google News search reveals trivial coverage in local news sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, He the Leader of a Very important Organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyJew (talk • contribs) 04:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keeling is a one-star and might be notable, but so far the only sources are RAF and RAF cadet ones. We'd need significant coverage in reliable sources independent of Keeling and the RAF for him to meet the GNG. He is/was a governor at Stamford College, Lincolnshire (which looks like a further education place for 16-18 year olds), see this and has several other claims to fame (mentioned in his Stamford profile, probably provided by him given the detail) such as being a trustee of the RAF Halton Apprentice Trust, a mentor for the Arkwright Scholars, a Chartered Engineer and Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society. Not sure if all of that adds up to much in terms of notability though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Being head of the RAF Cadets is much less notable than being head of the RAF would be. In no way is it "a Very important Organization". Athel cb (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs reliable coverage outside of RAF and RAF cadets. Paul W (talk) 12:39, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lani Aisida[edit]

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

BLP sourced essentially to IMDb and interviews. No in depth coverage in RIS found. Mccapra (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Google news search turns up 330 articles about or mentioning the subject. The subject has written or created a number of shows, films, and series that are important enough to have their own Wikipedia articles and has been a finalist for the Best of Nollywood Award for Best Screenplay. Because of all this, the subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are plenty of mentions of him, but where is the in depth coverage? Mccapra (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He has been the featured subject of a number of interview articles, some of which are linked in the article (meaning he meets the Notability Guidelines of "primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles" under creative professionals). That plus a major award nomination makes him a keep. And I should note that this notability is proved merely by English-language media sources, since I don't have the ability to search non-English media in Nigeria. It's quite likely there are more non-English sources proving notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SouthernNights Your comments will be much more helpful to other potential AfD respondents if you supply some of these links. What are the ones you think best support the subject's notability? Can you do a WP:THREE? -- asilvering (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already updated the article with added citations and a short rewrite. I have also stated my view, which is that the article has enough reliable sources to prove notability, including articles about the subject in the Nigerian national newspaper This Day, TheCable, BellaNaija, and other reliable media Nigerian sources. --SouthernNights (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus from contributing editors is that WP:GEOFEAT is met and despite 2 subsequent relists, no other editor offered a view contrary to keeping the article. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

House of Mihajlo Apostolski[edit]

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

The subject does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Cultural Heritage of North Macedonia [mk] would be a good redirect/merge target, but unfortunately it does not exist in English Wikipedia. MarioGom (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and North Macedonia. MarioGom (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MarioGom, the Macedonian and the Bulgarian versions of this article exist with no problem. And this article was created as part of our WikiVillage Project by the Shared Knowledge user group. The article is QR-coded and inserted on a informational plaque. So, when ever someone scans the QR-code of this English article, the QR-code will lead nowhere because you nominated the article for deletion, and the point of the project would lose its meaning. Dandarmkd (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dandarmkd: English Wikipedia has a general notability guideline (GNG) that might be different from other projects. Existence in other languages is sometimes a signal of notability, but do not necessarily prove notability according to English Wikipedia policy. Note that the title does not need to be removed. It can be converted to a redirect, if an appropriate redirect article exists (such as Cultural Heritage of North Macedonia. MarioGom (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see how having a QR has any relevance to this AFD to be honest. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOFEAT, as this is a nationally recognized cultural heritage site, and is presumed notable according to GEOFEAT. Pikavoom ^Talk 06:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet) --MarioGom (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOFEAT. Listed heritage building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the verifiable information beyond simple statistics (WP:GEOFEAT) available about this subject? MarioGom (talk) 08:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not great, I grant you. But a page exists on their website. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whose only text is an extract of the first line of the Wikipedia page, and referenced to Wikipedia. WP:CITOGENESIS should be discounted here. This source provides even less verifiability than simple statistics. I don't think merely proving existence is enough to pass notability with WP:GEOFEAT? MarioGom (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 21:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOFEAT. Listed heritage building. Djflem (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any verifiable information beyond simple statistics (WP:GEOFEAT)? Thanks. MarioGom (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Language is no doubt an issue, but open question of whether it passes GEOFEAT
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep a registered heritage building will have an explanation in relevant laws. We'd need to pull the laws, which will have references supporting the designation. I do not speak Macedonian so am unable to help in this regard however. Oaktree b (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mentioned in this paper [21] and these five hits in GScholar[22], none of which I can read. Most might be hits on the General himself. Oaktree b (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under WP:GEOFEAT given sources found by Oaktree b (I don't speak Macedonian either though). -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:18, 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 John Keane (political theorist). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monitory democracy[edit]

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

Social theory doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - lacks in-depth coverage that is independent of its creator John Keane. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:36, 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!} 00:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into John Keane (political theorist). There's very little on this page to show notability; almost all the relevant references are authored by Keane, so none of them are secondary. I'm close to arguing for delete, but a Google search for 'monitory democracy -Keane' does bring up results from other researchers. However, the way they are using the term looks closer to transparency or accountability to me than the concept Keane seems to talk about. Keane's own page barely references his work on monitory democracy and doesn't even link to the article so I think it's probably best to merge the most relevant parts of the article (a brief outline of Keane's concept and the criticisms would do IMO) into a section on Keane's page. Gazamp (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:00, 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. czar 05:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donut Diner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Restaurant chain doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. Shellwood (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP, at least with what's available online (unless I'm missing something crucial). I also doubt this adds much substance to the AfD itself, but I spent years living in St. Catharines and I'd say that when people talk about donuts, it's typically Beechwood for local ones [23][24] (but even that's not enough for NCORP) and Tim Hortons for everything else. I might be a bit biased since I never got to try these ones, though... too bad they went bankrupt. Clovermoss (talk) 01:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to find much coverage on this. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP.Zeddedm (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found another mention here: https://archive.macleans.ca/article/1985/4/29/the-500-billion-man . It indicates that the franchise may have had some links to modern Canadian history, but I don't see any evidence that it would be significant enough to justify having its own article. Chagropango (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It gets a small mention in a book but not enough for CORPDEPTH and I'm unable to locate anything that meets NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:49, 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.