< November 16	November 18 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

N55 (art collective)[edit]

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

Could not find any significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Danish version of this article is also lacking sources. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some hits for the walking house thing they did, nothing we can use to write an article about them. Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Organizations, and Denmark. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 01:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough information to make this notable. I can't find anything more on the internet. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not support notability. Alex-h (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find sources that would make this pass WP:GNG. ProofRobust 00:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject fails WP:GNG --Assyrtiko (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an organization therefore WP:NCORP applies. Topic fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Moving this article to Draft space per consensus and common practice. Note that a quick move back to main space could result in the article being deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Japan (2023 film)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:NFF. Not yet released, no indication that production was notable. DRAFT or delete until release.

PROD removed by the editor who moved the article from draft with reasoning "user doing improper editing multiple times - need to be reported", which seems is more of a personal attack against nominator WP:PA because they were upset that an article they created was nominated rather than move it back to draft until release.

Not sure why adding a PROD to a seemingly non-notable unreleased film is "improper editing" since there is no policy to back up that statement. In any case, this film has many citations about it being announced or a poster being released, but nothing of significance to establish notability as Wikipedia is not a film database site. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draft seems fine. Only the poster was released, hardly notable at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and throw a Film draft notice on it. Revisit when evidence of principal photography and such is going. Leave a redirect to the director. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 00:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why this page is being deleted? adding information is not a crime. More over the films production is started and its confirmed by the lead actor in his tweet

https://twitter.com/Karthi_Offl/status/1592119314374885378?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw SarkarVijay (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's being discussed for deletion as there are little to no sources we can use. A tweet isn't enough to keep an article. We need sourcing in newspaper articles or the like. Oaktree b (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Shooting already started on November 12th in Thoothukoodi as per mathrubhumi news article and I have referenced that and it definetly passes Notability for films with lot of reference which are reliable, secondary and independend. I don't know why someone among who tried to remove the article removed the Times of India article as well. Attaching the reference from mathrubhumi.

Reference - https://www.mathrubhumi.com/movies-music/news/karthi-new-movie-japan-filming-started-anu-emmanuel-and-raju-murugan-1.8028705 Jehowahyereh (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia guidelines for future films WP:NFF, "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines."

Please explain why you think the production so far has been notable when the only links provided so far have just said filming has begun. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Per WP:NFF, Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines. WP:GNG states that not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, including minor announcements. In this case, the references, while some are WP:RS, almost all announce that production has begun or a poster, that fails WP:SIGCOV. As such, with WP:GNG or WP:NFILM failed IMO drafting this is a good option. VickKiang (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Times of India is not a reliable source per WP:RSP. Already told you that on the talk page. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 06:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Initially the AFD nominators concern was that the principal photography has not started so the page need to be removed, when I provided the evidence about filming commenced on November 12, the concern changed to production not notable. Here is the evidence to prove the production is notable. Every one in this film production are very much notable Directed and written by Raju Murugan, Produced by S. R. Prabhu, Starring Karthi - Its a prominent film in Karthi's career as its his 25th film, Anu Emmanuel , Sunil, Vijay Milton, Cinematography by Ravi Varman, Music by G. V. Prakash Kumar and Production company Dream Warrior Pictures.

Someone who commented above said Times of India is not reliable as per WP:RSP, but we can clearly see that its a NO CONSEUS and thus no one can say its not reliable. Jehowahyereh (talk) 13:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The film is officially started into production and this page should not be deleted SarkarVijay (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia guidelines for future films WP:NFF, "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines."

Please explain why you think the production so far has been notable. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it says the Times is between unreliable and no consensus, we can't use it as a reliable source. Oaktree b (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what Times Now says about Japan Movie It has definitely set a new bar in the entertainment industry . Even top news papers are telling like this which means its clearly a notable production. Jehowahyereh (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Times Now reference : https://www.timesnownews.com/entertainment-news/japan-first-look-out-actor-karthi-in-quirky-avatar-in-his-25th-film-fans-say-rocket-raja-returns-article-95513843 Jehowahyereh (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article is about the actor, with the film mentioned in it. Does not help notability of the film. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A film doesn't inherit notability because that the directors, actors, and producers are notable. VickKiang (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: as most of the users said above. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ 18:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT : As per the inclusion criteria of films - 2nd point The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career it is proved that the movie is notable as its Karthi's milestone movie being it his 25th movie as reported by lot of news media as referenced in the article. Also its is filmmaker Vijay Milton debut as an actor which was featured by News18, Indiagitz etc . Also its heroine Anu Emmanuel's second big film in her career as per news reports. Thus this movie is is proved notable. Jehowahyereh (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, what is wrong with it being DRAFTED until release? DonaldD23 talk to me 17:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, what is wrong with it being live, else you may try to draftying all movies in the upcoming movie list ? I have made my point Jehowahyereh (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. VickKiang (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because we follow policies and procedures on Wikipedia, not emotions. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Not enough sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: Ignore the WP:CANVASsing by Jehowahyereh (talk · contribs) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 09:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DaxServer: I've added a not a vote template, IMO that's sufficient. VickKiang (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Its not any sought of canvassing, I just asked few to post what they feel about the AFD discussion. I have not asked anyone to do Keep Votes instead asked them to post their genuine feedback. Then what is the problem ? Even one person I message added a Draftify as well. I wanted people who know about Tamil movies make comments or votes rather than who just don't know about it. Jehowahyereh (talk) 10:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should read WP:CANVASS again. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices that violate WP:INAPPNOTE, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them. You deliberately selected a specific audience, and suggested in your messages that other voters (presumably including me) fail to understand Tamil movies, which is a violation of the neutral message: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner, you clearly introduced only your opinion. VickKiang (talk) 10:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it many times previously as well. I have been neutral in my point of view and in the message I send. I have asked them to post whatever they feel about it. Not any Keep or Not any delete, what ever they feel they may post and I was not specific and thus I was very much neutral. If not why would one among them already posted to Draftify the article ??? Jehowahyereh (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
neutral? I'll post one of your message here for other users to opine:

Hi S Abhiram, I hope you will be interested in editing film related wiki pages. I want you to take part in an AFD discussion of the Karthi's new movie Japan. I think AFD is being created by some foreigners who don't know much about Indian Films. Being an Indian I feel that you will understand more and point out your genuine opininion whatever it be in the AFD . Here is the link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Japan_(2023_film)

I think AFD is being created by some foreigners who don't know much about Indian Films. Being an Indian I feel that you will understand more and point out your genuine opininion whatever it be in the AFD . There is no guideline that states that users who are supposedly "foreigners" don't know much about Indian films to participate in those AfDs, and this is a biased notification. VickKiang (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The post by user Jehowahyereh on the other users page, that is copied above, is the definition of canvassing. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Added 2 references, one from ETimes justifying that the production is notable and one from Malayala Manorama justifying the point as per the inclusion criteria of films - 2nd point The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career - Milestone movie in Karthi's career Jehowahyereh (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting the inclusionary criteria would require numerous WP:RS to state that it is a major part of their career, not merely your opinion coupled with routine announcements and marginally reliable sources (e.g., The Times of India). VickKiang (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Juozas Valiukevičius[edit]

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

Not notable academic. Can't find any info about him, other than his 1981 thesis and few articles he authored. Renata•3 23:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Clearly fails WP:NBIO. Clearly a vanity page. MurrayGreshler (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @MurrayGreshler: Your "vanity page" comment is an evidence-free personal attack on both Valiukevičius and the article creator. Please be more careful to limit your arguments in these discussions to notability criteria and not your imagined motivations of subjects and editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1 -- I apologize for my rash comment (not an "attack") if it was as intemperate and hurtful as @David indicates. But I fail to see how it is an attack in any way on Juozas Valiukevičius unless he is following this thread or edits on Wikipedia. I concede this was not a vanity article but there are plenty of attempts at creating those on WP. MurrayGreshler (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Lithuania. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 01:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created this article. I thought that any taxon describer is automatically notable for enwiki. I was wrong.--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and other notability criteria. ProofRobust 00:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His citation counts are actually pretty good for a very low-citation field, but that's not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 and we have no evidence of anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coy Tillett Sr. Memorial Field[edit]

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

It is just a run-of-the-mill baseball field. No indication of notability. Mucube (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not only is the field non-notable but so is the person for whom it is named. My Google search came up with only this. MurrayGreshler (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:MILL, and WP:SNOW. Not much more to add. We don't have an article on Charles Fatjo Plaza, either. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above (except SNOW does not apply). Non-notable baseball field. Frank Anchor 03:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing that indicates a GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pixar characters[edit]

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

Seeing that a similiar thing happened with a List of Disney animated universe characters, is this page necessary? If someone is looking for lists of Pixar characters, there are already pages like List of Toy Story characters or List of Monsters, Inc. characters (which for no reason have exclusive sections for them on this other page apart from the rest of characters that are simply arranged alphabetically regardless of its origin).--BrookTheHumming (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you remember to AfD the article? It isn’t showing up at the top of the page. Zaynab1418 (talk) 09:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Disney, and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete massively redundant to aforementioned lists and generally fancruft. Dronebogus (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and unnecessary fancruft. Bad writing to boot ("Monster's Inc"). sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: redundant to the character lists for the individual movies. Does not need to be listed twice. Jontesta (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as an WP:ATD, I would suggest that this article could be converted into a very brief WP:LISTOFLISTS. That is, just keep the See Also links as the full content of the page. This seems like a plausible search term, so I have a preference for maintaining it as a list of lists rather than a dead link. Suriname0 (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that, but there’s no reason it couldn’t be deleted and recreated as a meta-list. It’d also be preferable to move it to “lists of Pixar characters” Dronebogus (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, I'm not familiar enough with the details to understand why a Delete + New Article would be better than a Page Move. Isn't preserving page history generally preferred? Suriname0 (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, this article seems to be just character names, film names, and performers... not exactly the sort of thing that needs attribution (hence WP:MAD). -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article was only tagged on Nov. 13th so I'm relisting this discussion so it can get a full 7 days of consideration. I urge others not to close it before 11/20 if possible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nearly every entry here simply links to the corresponding character or cast list for the the individual movies/franchises, making it redundant to those already existing lists. There is no actual connection between the characters from the different franchises aside from simply being created by the same studio, so listing this massive amount of characters from dozens of completely different properties is not an appropriate grouping or way to present the information. Rorshacma (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Converting this to a list of lists would be redundant with a list of lists of Disney characters, should it ever be made. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 1992 Kazakhstan Cup. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Kazakhstan Cup Final[edit]

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

"individual season notability" may be "insufficient for an article, with an existing article covering the topic of "Kazakhstan Cup." This is one of many individual season entries here; with many omissions. The reference section of the article illustrates that individual seasons were not covered consistently. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Kazakhstan. Shellwood (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a little unsure what to make of this, it's possible the sourcing for this is more WP:OFFLINESOURCES. However that means there will be serious issues here as we honestly can't know what kind of coverage there will be for this region of the world. Kazakhstan is not really known for it's football. Maybe a soft redirect to Kazakhstan Cup. But that article also has serious notability issues. There is only one link on the page in question which can easily be missed which is the report in the middle of the squad list. Not exactly helpful for sure. Govvy (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1992 Kazakhstan Cup, probably doesn't need a separate article. Giant Snowman 13:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rail transport modelling. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of rail transport modellers[edit]

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

This violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and is not encyclopedic.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. 22:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC) Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. These are both real people (implicating WP:BLP), the deceased, and the fictional. I don't get the unifying basis for a list, except they liked model trains. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fundamentally unencyclopedic, especially the fictional section. That's just absurd and something that belongs on a Buzzfeed listicle, not Wikipedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Rail transport modelling in my opinion its better to redirect or merge to a parent article instead of deleting this all together. NotOrrio (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Armenian actors[edit]

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

Like the freshly deleted List of Bangladeshi actors, this is a simple list that is redundant to the corresponding category/categories. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Armenia. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not all the actors in the list may be represented in the respective category. I don't see a valid enough reason for complete deletion. Archives908 (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I see no reason why the lists should be deleted, as long as the entries fulfill the criteria at WP:LISTPEOPLE. I find the lists extremely helpful to navigate through the site as stand-alone pages and not merely categories. Per WP:NOTDUP: "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template that all cover the same topic." Also, for the nominator (again, per WP:NOTDUP): "Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." ExRat (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Cameroon, Ghana, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Philippines, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, and Chile. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTPEOPLE. KimOvik (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC) — KimOvik (talk · contribs) is a suspected sock puppet of Elbatli (talk · contribs). [reply]
Keep per WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:NOTDUP and maybe restore List of Bangladeshi actors.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per others. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like Spiderone says, these lists are good to keep on Wikipedia. Why delete the lists of actors if readers want to search for them? Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daily News (United Arab Emirates)[edit]

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

Newspaper website that started just over a month ago. I can't find any decent third party coverage about this newspaper nor its parent company, Niloy Digital LLC. It might pass WP:GNG in a few years but it's WP:TOOSOON at this moment, in my view. I would have tagged as WP:A7 if newspapers qualified for this. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another 'dude with a blog' (non-Indian for a change!) who I highly doubt pays to use Agence France-Presse and the Khaleej Times (which has been a daily newspaper online since at least the end of 1997, immediately disproving the article's claim), along with several other sources, basically strip-mining RSS feeds for their content without any credit. Every story on the front page is a copy/paste of AFP or Khaleej stories with 'credits' which seem to come from 'writers' made up from an Arabic name generator). Nate • (chatter) 21:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have to agree, though doesn't it fall under organization or website for WP:A7? Lalaithan (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the other editors' points above. BogLogs (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per "Too soon" policy. No indication of a notability for this media outlet.Bormenthalchik82 (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edet FK[edit]

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

This is complex, but contemporary Sweden is not a case where sourcing is completely inaccessible, but I cannot find evidence that this merged team, extant since 2012, nor the constituent teams: Inlands IF Lilla Edets IF (which was fifth tier pre merger) are notable. I can find game reports, but nothing approaching N:ORG, or the GNG. Star Mississippi 19:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Football, and Sweden. Star Mississippi 19:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formal inclusion of the below in the bundle for visibility Star Mississippi 20:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - low-level Swedish teams, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is sourcing at Lilla Edets IF, however it appears that none of it has been merged to the primary article in your nomination, it could be possible just to merge the three together, You could have brought up this topic at WT:FOOTBALL to question whether the articles could be improved, but rarely do people go that route! I really question if this AfD is helpful. (WP:TNT and start again in my opinion) but I see your point. @GiantSnowman: You didn't sign your post above correctly. Govvy (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up! Giant Snowman 15:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense @Govvy, but it's unclear (to me) whether the merged team would be notable as such a low level team. Therefore a merger would kick the can down the road, but no objection of course if this is the outcome. Star Mississippi 01:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there are more opinions about possible Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anushka Kaushik[edit]

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

~~Not a Notable works, WP:NACTRESS doesn't meet secondary sources WP:SIGCOV Wikiindiawikiindia (talk)~~ 18:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)(sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers. Wikiindiawikiindia (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Anushka has worked in Hindi films like Ujda Chaman and web series like Maharani, ‘Ghar Waapsi’, ‘Thar’ and ‘Crash Course’, Boys Hostel.

--Curvasingh (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are many such actors who have worked in many web series.she does not have a lead role in a single web series.Sir fifty to hundred actors, or actress work in web series, all not be notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Wikiindiawikiindia (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anushka has played lead role in Who's Your Daddy, Ghar Waapsi and Crash Course.--Curvasingh (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not done any lead role in all the films which are listed in the article. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable enough as explained above. WP:TOOSOON. User4edits (talk) 04:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to be working actress and I can't see how an actor who hasn't played lead roles isn't notable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete typical tabloid fluff, stuff about her mother, learning to speak Bojpuri, nothing we can use for an article here. Most are only a few paragraphs long, if that. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability.Antonyvlas (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kero Kero Bonito discography#Singles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flamingo (Kero Kero Bonito song)[edit]

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

Not convinced the sources here meet SIGCOV altogether. The DIY page is solid, and Afterglow and Impact 89 both discuss the song to some significance but not primarily. The rest only contains passing mentions and can be ignored. Didn't find any additional coverage. Article was previously redirected, and while the coverage is definitely better now than it was then, I still don't think it's quite at the level needed to exist as a standalone article. I vote to restore the redirect to the band's page. QuietHere (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. QuietHere (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Ryan Hemsworth#Secret Songs. The article on Hemsworth has very little text, and there is no reason that this content shouldn't be housed there where it would improve coverage on the Secret Songs project. I think that is a better place for this content then in the page on the band Kero Kero Bonito, as it would add undue weight to that article. Further, as an individual song it fails WP:NSONG.4meter4 (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that makes way more sense. I support this merger plan. QuietHere (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Holy crap... I just recreated the page yesterday. Give me a chance to work on it, will ya! This sort of insta-deletion urge is ridiculous.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 14:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Next time you might wanna start as a draft then so other editors don't see it when it's not ready yet. However, despite the new sources you added I still don't think it's ready. Of the 14 additional sources added since yesterday, the only one I could guarantee reliability from is The Line of Best Fit. Per its about page, Spincoaster appears to be mainly focused on commercial work rather than being a music publication which would make that best of 2014 list either basically a blog post or maybe even paid for. It's not entirely clear, but I just wouldn't trust it. Otherwise nothing else in there is any good for GNG. QuietHere (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, don't demolish the house while it's still being built! I don't know if I've ever used drafts, and there's no reason that I need to start now. Regarding Spincoaster, that's a fair point, although I'd argue the interview with the band is reliable. I'll remove the critical reception bit, though. But aside from that, we have non-trivial discussions of the song in DIY, Line of Best Fit, Afterglow, CE Noticias Financieras, and several publications that interviewed the band. It's popularity on TikTok is also discussed in a non-trivial way across several publications.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 20:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already responded to "don't demolish the house" just below this and I stand by that.

The point of a draft is to start on an article and develop it over time. They're very helpful to have around and I'd recommend it, even if it's something as small as just not having the time to build out the whole article in one sitting. I use 'em all the time for upcoming releases that I suspect will attain notability around their release time but aren't there when they've only just been announced. There's plenty of good reasons to start an article as a draft, including avoiding AfDs like this.

Afterglow is a student-run paper per their about page, see WP:STUDENTMEDIA

I think the appropriate policy is WP:RSSM, which notes, "They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics". Given that the source has an editorial staff, I'd say it's a solid work.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 13:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. The articles on the TikTok trend only constitute brief mentions of the song and trend, falling short of SIGCOV. I think the DIY and LoBF announcement articles are only just above that line, while the DIY "trading MP3s" article is definitely too brief.

2. Interviews are always difficult as is discussed in WP:INTERVIEW, but in this case I can imagine a lot of editors would discount these as too close to primary. QuietHere (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion in CE Noticias Financieras is pretty decent.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 13:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with sources being primary in and of themselves.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 13:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The same page says "secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability". That's what's wrong with them being primary. QuietHere (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm not claiming notability on the basis of only the primary sources. I'm simply including them to show that "attention [is] being given to the subject"--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 21:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And just to be clear, I wouldn't have launched this AfD if I had found additional coverage to add; in that case I would've just added ((Refideas)) to the talk page. It's not a matter of an incomplete page that just needs more time in the oven. QuietHere (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this argument was first made when the article stood at 4k bytes, and in a day, I managed to find 10k bytes of additional material to add to the page, largely from simple Google searches.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 13:30, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But without enough additional reliable sources. As I said, I made my BEFORE search, saw the stuff you've added, dismissed it as unreliable and moved on. You could've added 50k bytes but it'd still be non-notable information. QuietHere (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Dismiss[ing] [content] as unreliable" is one reason why I find this whole thing frustrating. What here is "unreliable"? The primary sources which are just sourcing basic facts? 'Cuz other than that, everything I see is from perfectly fine sources.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 21:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do your article offline using Word or another word processing thing. Then when it's ready for wiki, copy and paste it here. That's what I do. Avoids having this happen. Oaktree b (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or, again, start it as a draft and request a review when you think it's ready for publishing. QuietHere (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kero Kero Bonito discography#Singles. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed target per below. SBKSPP (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kero Kero Bonito discography#Singles instead, not Hemsworth's Secret Songs. A suitable redirect to the KKB discography, is needed so that it should be redirected to discography, not the label. –-2600:1700:9BF3:220:E5DF:BBC6:E859:6917 (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But what would make that a more informative redirect than the Secret Songs section? Secret Songs has room to add information about the song that wouldn't fit on a discography page, and redirects owe users the best possible information rather than any specific target page. The discog page doesn't even link back to Secret Songs so users will be left assuming all there is to know about the song is that it was a non-album single released in 2014. QuietHere (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, if the non-album single is not notable under WP:NSONGS, a redirect to an specific artist's discography is needed, not every artists have discography pages. A redirect to Secret Songs section, could pose an WP:XY issue, pinging Onel5969, the one who BLARred the song's article wayback two years ago, to speak an opinion about it. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:E5DF:BBC6:E859:6917 (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in NSONGS that I can see does it require a redirect specifically to the artist's discography page/section. I don't think XY is actually an issue because Secret Songs already links back directly to the band. That discography section is only two clicks away and plenty findable from there, and as I said, it's better equipped to be more informative about the song than the discography section. QuietHere (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kero Kero Bonito discography#Singles, which is a more specific target than the original redirect. Fails NSONG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different redirects proposed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the discography page to add a link to Secret Songs so it should be fine to redirect to the former now. Since that's the apparent consensus here, it at least makes sense to leave a link to prose on the song so the connection isn't entirely lost. QuietHere (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, this is me throwing support behind Kero Kero Bonito discography#Singles as a redirect target. I'd rather this not end as no consensus, please and thank you. QuietHere (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion on possibly renaming this article can occur on its talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quran translations into Hebrew language[edit]

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

Nothing surprising about seeing Quran's translation into another language. The article is looking like a directory and is unnecessary since List of translations of the Quran already exists. Wareon (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current article is very basic but there is a large amount of scholarly work and debate about the translation of the Quran which the article in its current shape doesn’t properly cover. There is plenty of room to expand on the topic and a listing of historical translations including several from blue linked authors is not really a “directory”. Mccapra (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A very few of the numerous examples of discussion of this topic in RIS: 1, 2 and 3. Mccapra (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmirŞah 20:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a re-write explaining why it's important, rather than just being a list of people who've translated it. The sources given above might help. Oaktree b (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like English translations of the Quran. Per above comments. Nexus between Islam and Judaism, academic coverage. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Should be renamed Hebrew translations of the Quran like the English page and for style reasons. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vadym Startsev[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Vadym Startsev

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

Article about former footballer who spent most of his career in the second and third levels of Ukrainian football, with just twelve appearances in the top level. Despite having a 12-year club football career, I can't locate any WP:SIGCOV (this is one of the best sources I found, and it's not in-depth at all). Accordingly, article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - best source I can find is this profile page, which is not independent as it's published by FC Stal Alchevsk, a club that he used to play for. Per WP:SPORTBASIC, football club websites are not the best sources for proving notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Fails WP:GNG for lack of coverage.Antonyvlas (talk) 10:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC) - sock strike - Beccaynr (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete 'per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of railfans[edit]

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

This violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and is not encyclopedic. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random list, surprised my name isn't there! Most aren't even sourced and I don't really see the need for such a list. Oaktree b (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The unsourced entries should have a source in the linked-to article, as here. If somebody adds an entry that is not sourced in either place, I remove it, as here. I just haven't got around to checking through the whole list yet. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can pretty much only be filled via WP:SYNTH since I don't think most people would actually say to a reliable source "oh ya by the way I'm a railfan". Alternatively rename to "List of foamers"^[Joke] ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't meet WP:NLIST at all, as being a railfan is not a defining characteristic. Each specific person in the list is notable, and the topic of railfans is also notable, but a list of railfans with articles (especially one with such poor sourcing) is not notable. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above discussion, But seriously, how is this random list of people who liked to ride trains useful for our core readership? Bearian (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as utterly useless niche trivia. Dronebogus (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inherently both trivia and an indiscriminate list. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Railfan in my opinion its better to redirect or merge to a parent article instead of deleting this all together. NotOrrio (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This article has never been deleted before, at least not at this page title, so I'll refrain from salting the page.

Bearian, contact me if you are serious about wanting to devote your valuable online time to this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Henry[edit]

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

Disputed draftification, twice. WP:ROTM businessperson. Many people have senior roles, so what? I've had them and I don't merit an article here. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nommed; the Forbes piece aside, none of the sources contribute towards notability. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete UPE copied out of Afc when it was rank. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 20:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't meet WP:GNG; lack of coverage in independent, secondary sources. --bonadea contributions talk 20:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt she sold a bunch of shares recently and is quoted in a few articles. Nothing about her as a person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails Wikipedia:SIGCOV, Wikipedia:BIO and do not have any citation that comply with WP:RS.AndrewYuke (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC) - strike sock - Beccaynr (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. The article is currently a mess that would be normally destroyed, but her roles in several corporate boards at least hint that she's notable. If nobody else will work on it, I would be willing to work on it over the holidays. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian Your opinion is very much respected. And the outcome could well be the one you suggest. May I ask you to consider that this is already a disputed draftification, and to consider whether the improvements you hope for will happen? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't promise that this will be done by December 31, 2022, Timtrent, so if the consensus is to delete it, so be it. Bearian (talk)

Delete and salt. Poorly written and even more poorly sourced article. Another amateur attempt to establish presence on Wikipedia by any means.--Bormenthalchik82 (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Product articles are a challenging area as there are some fields where Wikipedia does have articles for different models or series of models and many other subject areas where it doesn't. That said, there is a consensus here to Delete but if the page creator wishes to work on their article in Draft space, incorporating the reviews that have been tracked down and submit it for review to AFC, let me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dell Chromebook 3100 2-in-1[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. BEFORE search fails to find RS. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there is significant coverage. If you follow that link it says that significant coverage is "addressing the topic directly and in detail," of which the article does both. The article has a brief introduction to the computer so that you can understand why it was made and for who it was made. The article then went into detail about quite a few of the specs of the computer. If we look at the other General notability guideline you can see that the article does not presume anything, everything that it says is a fact. The source provided while not being a published source, since you won't find a published source about this topic, is very reliable, as well as covers everything in the article. To end the General Notability Guidelines the source meets the criteria of being Independent of the Subject. Therefore there is no case to delete this article.Annox05 (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Annox05[reply]

"I believe that there is significant coverage. If you follow that link it says that significant coverage is "addressing the topic directly and in detail," of which the article does both." you are misunderstanding. Significant coverage applies to sources. Not the article itself. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable whatsoever. Only source in the article is simply a product information page allowing you to buy it, and all the sources I find are either for buying the product itself or for buying products related to the device. Annox seems to have a severe misunderstanding of WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see they've been blocked a few times, happy to point them to articles explaining what we require for GNG. Let's all build a better mousetrap called wiki together! Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked once. Then the admin who blocked me refused to unblock me even though I did everything that he had asked months before and another admin had to come in and unblock me since the original guy refused to do it. Annox05 (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "best laptop under 500 bucks" and similar articles, mostly fluff. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There exist reviews of the laptop [1], [2], and [3]. These seem reliable. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 12:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think reviews contribute to notability. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As secondary, and as far as I can tell, independent sources, I think they contribute to notability. In particular, WP:BOOKCRIT includes independent book reviews as one class of reliable sources for books. While we don't have an SNG for hardware, I think the same reasoning applies to hardware reviews for hardware. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 18:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly not notable and is more or less just fluff. We don't create pages for every model of laptop. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mubarak Al-Bishi[edit]

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

Badly sourced BLP on semi-pro footballer with no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Subject played 2 cup games then disappeared into the semi-pro/amateur levels. Best sources I can find are Akhbaar 24 and Alyaum both of which clearly duplicate each other. Also, this basic transfer announcement does not amount to significant coverage as it doesn't allow us to build a meaningful biography for the footballer. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 16:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Soffe[edit]

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

Complete lack of notability. Only reference is a self-published book (on lulu.com) written by the creator of this article. And even in that book the info on Soffe wouldn't be sufficient to establish notability. The external link is a forum with again minimal info on Soffe. Google doesn't return anything useful either. Fram (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and England. Fram (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and likely could have been WP:PROD deleted instead of taking to AfD. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^(c/t) 01:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Michaelides[edit]

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

Complete lack of notability. The reference is a self-published book (on lulu.com), the first external link is a forum where a search for Michaelides gave no results anyway, Fram (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport, England, and Australia. Fram (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO for lack of coverage. LibStar (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMOTORSPORT as British League and National League not international. I can't find any RS and would seem very unlikely to-- fails WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 16:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2013 NECBL All-Star Game[edit]

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

WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Baseball. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the lone source cited in the existing article is the Laconia Muskrats website, which simply says that the Robbie Mills Field will be hosting the 2013 NECBL All-Star Game. Otherwise, there were two pieces I found about the actual game: The Berkshire Eagle (an article so short, it makes their coverage of the 2014 game look massive) and a University Wire article about MVP Joe Torres (two paragraphs on his performance in the all-star game, plus a quote)] (via ProQuest). I'm not convinced that UWIRE counts as an RS for notability purposes, and regardless, the sources don't offer quite enough information to write an article about the game. (NB: The MVP is *not* the same person as this Joe Torres (baseball). Cielquiparle (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 16:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2014 NECBL All-Star Game[edit]

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

WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Baseball. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article lacks any secondary sources and the only SIGCOV I was able to find on the 2014 game was this article in The Berkshire Eagle via ProQuest. (I should add though that the game does get mentioned when individual players get selected for the all-star team, but these types of articles typically focus on the athletes only.) So far, that one article on the 2014 all-star game looks strong compared to coverage of other years' games, but the issue is that this is the only real secondary source and thus doesn't manage to satisfy WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 18:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doirani railway station[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. It is unclear whether the article wants to be about the current line + situation (which the infobox is about) or the old station building (which is located in the same village but quite distant from the new one apparently). Sources added after the prod include a postcard[4], a source which doesn't mention the station[5], a source which has one line about the old station[6], and a blog, Most of the article is generic "history" repeated in countless similar Greek station articles. Fram (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Transportation, and Greece. Fram (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it is almost always very significantly preferable to merge and/or redirect articles about verifiable but non-notable railway stations to a more appropriate article, in this is no exception. The information about the old station and a small amount about the new should be merged to Dirani#Transport; the information about the new station should be merged to a new list article about stations on the Thessaloniki–Alexandroupoli railway along with the others on the line (any that are individually notable should remain stand-alone articles with ((main)) links from the list). This title should probably redirect to the relevant section of the list article, which should obviously have a link back to the information about the old station, but I'm less certain of that. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems well-sourced; it's longer than I expected. Usually we only see XYZ Station at milepost 123.4, and that's the extent of it. I'm biased in being a railfan, but is seems well-fleshed out as an article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Detailed and well-sourced article. No reason it shouldn't be about both the old station and the new station. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's part of the wider set of articles concerning the railway network, and part of the history is specific to the station itself. I see no issue with notability. --Antondimak (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's so many bare URLs (in Greek) that I can hardly make sense of what is even a reliable source. With that said, there's more here than your average train stub. This may well be notable enough for its own article, but I am concerned the sources are not reliable and/or do not give significant coverage. That there was both an old station and a new one does help with the odds that this is notable, however. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Trainsandotherthings:, its work translating from Greek to English, and then decoding the salient points and sometimes I don't get everything done in one sitting ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly likely to have received coverage when opened and/or rebuilt.Garuda3 (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has recieved coverage and is well sources I entirley agree with User:Garuda3 and User:Oaktree b's statements that there is enough coverage and also one of main reasons some people are against keeping it is because the sources are in greek when it can be translated to english NotOrrio (talk) 07:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that was a reason not to keep the article. I don't appreciate the bad-faith accusations from you (plus the fact that you somehow only seem to comment in AfDs I have participated in). How about you stop hounding me before you end up blocked? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) –CaroleHenson (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Gayle Hoff[edit]

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

I could not find any articles already in Wikipedia to link to this article, nor content in Hoff's article to update other articles with links -- and is thus an orphan. As lovely as she sounds, the article does not seem to be notability guidelines. –CaroleHenson (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator based upon the discussion below and the work of Beccaynr. Using procedure from WP:WDAFD.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Keep per sources identified below satisfying WP:NAUTHOR. Newspapers.com turns up 22 clippings of op-ed pieces and letters to the editor which MGH wrote and got published in The Taos News and The Santa Fe New Mexican. (Searches in ProQuest and EBSCOHost mostly duplicate that.) The one hit that jumps out in JSTOR is the one-paragraph Library Quarterly book review of Bring out Your Own Book: Low Cost Self Publishing which she co-authored. But that isn't enough for an entire article about her; very little biographical information is available beyond the brief bios she submits with her bylines. ~~Does not meet WP:BASIC, let along WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG.~~ Cielquiparle (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the Nom. Pahiy (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Book reviews also include Kirkus Reviews (Rose), Publishers Weekly (Free Ride), Library Journal (Free Ride, via EBSCOhost), BookList and Lambda Book Report (Free Ride, abstracts via ProQuest), Lesbian Tide (Dyke Music, via EBSCOhost), and she has an entry in Feminists Who Changed America, 1963-1975 (p. 217). Her co-authored book about self-publishing is also discussed in context in "Media Report to Women", Reveal Digital (via JSTOR). There are additional sources in the article that are not easily accessible but are not self-published nor self-authored and suggest further support for WP:BASIC notability may exist, in addition to WP:AUTHOR. Beccaynr (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Orphan status is not a basis for deletion, but I de-orphaned the article based on her education and teaching experience. Beccaynr (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Have changed !vote above in light of sources found. (Yes, I didn't search Google hard enough, also not with the name variations and book titles.) Will try to come back to this later this week if needed, but in the meantime this is plenty to work with! Cielquiparle (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually DuckDuckGo that led to Kirkus and PW, but the name variations also helped find more on the WP Library. :) Beccaynr (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cielquiparle and Beccaynr. Gamaliel (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep thanks to work of Beccaynr. I also found her listed in ""Marilyn Hoff." Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors, Gale, 2012. Gale Literature Resource Center, link.gale.com/apps/doc/H1000046208/LitRC?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=c2cc843a. Accessed 17 Nov. 2022." and there was a review of Dink's Blues in "CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. Sept, 1966, 520" although I don't have access to the actual review. Note that she is usually listed as "Marilyn Hoff" so adding her middle name may make searching more difficult and I wonder if it should be included in the article title. Lamona (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also found reviews for Dink's Blues in Kirkus Reviews, The Ladder (via EBSCOhost), and Library Journal (citation only, via Gale). Thank you for the additional sources, and I have started adding information from the Gale profile. Beccaynr (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cycling at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's sprint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Dohis[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable cyclist. A WP:BEFORE seach only returned some stats and this image. Curbon7 (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Olympics, and France. Curbon7 (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but I believe the others prefer a redirect.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cycling at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's sprint as a good alternative to deletion. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cycling at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's sprint as a valid WP:ATD. ATD is a policy, so overrides anyone's own preferences to delete rather than redirect. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J. Max Davis[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable mayor. A WP:BEFORE search, including a look through newspapers.com, revealed no sources that provided significant coverage (even amongst local sources, coverage is minimal and hardly significant). Proposing deletion and re-creation for his WP:NPOL-passing father who shares the same name. Curbon7 (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Georgia (U.S. state). Curbon7 (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only mayor of metropolis are notable. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️ 12:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not remotely true. Small town mayors can be notable if they have enough wide coverage to meet WP:GNG, such as Pete Buttigieg. Curbon7 (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. While a small-city mayor could be notable (see e.g., Jason West), there must be significant coverage beyond ordinary elections and local news. Alternately, we have sometimes created an article for a father and son with the same name. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Myong[edit]

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

Footballer who played 44 mins at pro level then disappeared. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Nothing useful found in Google, ProQuest, Newspapers.com or DDG. Best source is a squad list mention in FAS, which is not independent. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it seems he is doing other things with his life right now and this is a BLP. No secondary coverage found and doesn't meet WP:BASIC. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 00:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Karshtedt[edit]

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

While certainly accomplished, simply does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Associate law professor isn't notable. The other accomplishments aren't notable. I can only find mentions of his passing in law blogs. Oaktree b (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a case where if the subject hadn't passed away early, they would likely have met WP:NPROF in 5 or 10 years. But alas, with low citation numbers and h-index, and no prominent position, he does not meet WP:NPROF. Curbon7 (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ridvan Balci[edit]

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

9 minutes of pro-level play in 2015. Best I can find are some media mentions of the "local newspaper writes about local club" variety like [7], but nothing GNG-worthy. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, failing GNG. Govvy (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mostly just found stats. A few mentions in transfer pages and articles. Not enough evidence of notability. HennSw123 (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the "local newspaper" article provided is valid and passes GNG IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ortizesp, it most definitively does not. Lokalkompass is a (quotes translated from de:WVW/ORA Anzeigenblätter#Lokalkompass) "citizen's community" where "anyone who registers as a citizen reporter can write about topics of their own choosing or upload photos". For example, the author of the text in question is a retiree, as evidenced by his profile page. It's a nice idea to get a local community newspaper going, but useful for our purposes it is not. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swirl function[edit]

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

Not notable. There is a MathWorld page on the same subject (two sentences along with figures). The article cites a book – Trott, M., Graphica 1: The World of Mathematica Graphics. The Imaginary Made Real: The Images of Michael Trott. Champaign, IL: Wolfram Media, pp. 36-37 and 86, 1999 – which I concede I don't have a copy of, but which I think is unlikely to be the significant coverage we are looking for. There are search results for the phrase "swirl function", with a variety of meanings, especially in fluid mechanics, but not for the subject of this article. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Swirl is a rather non-firmly-settled term for a generic group of functions. The group of functions may also be encountered or aliased as vortices, eddies, and more. It's true that vortices is a somewhat highly studied phenomenon in physics & engeneering, but the topic itself does not let itself encapsulate to just that and similar. It rather has pure applied mathematical application too. E.g. one needs very little research to find an abundance of swirl pens available for Photoshop - and, oh, Mr. Swirl failed. WStrBinA (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the compelling nomination. As with many pages in MathWorld, this doesn't seem to really be a thing. --JBL (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With only a single source this does not appear to pass WP:GNG. The MathWorld page is not independent of the source (both are closely associated with the Mathematica software system), is not in-depth, is only dubiously reliable, and does not support the article's claim that this is a name for a specific function. Searching MathSciNet and zbMATH for the title phrase found one paper each (different papers) but they appear to use "swirl function" to mean something unrelated, a given function describing swirl in a liquid rather than this special function. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect this page is referring to a class of functions used to create swirl effects in image processing and photography. See for instance, [8] and [9]. I don't think there is enough deep coverage out there to justify an article, but they are definitely a thing and swirl distortions were even a trend on social media at one point. A summary of this might fit in an article on say image filter effects, but I don't know of such an article. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 01:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another dubious term from MathWorld. I can't see an argument for wiki-notability here, and even if swirl filters/swirl distortion effects are a topic we could cover on another (yet-to-be-determined) page, it doesn't look like "swirl function" would be a good redirect. XOR'easter (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mayfair, Raipur[edit]

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

~~Promotion Page does no meet to WP:GNG Rohit5001849W (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rohit5001849W (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chhattisgarh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a publicity-piece. Even the reference from Mayfair, Raipur#In News just says that a group of politicians stayed there. Joyous! | Talk 19:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no architectural or historical significance. The advertorial-style articles promoting this hotel don't convince me of its notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, no indications of notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:SPAM, WP:TNT, and User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_hotels. The consensus appears to be that this is spam for a hotel. It badly fails my long-standing standards; for example, no paper of record or notable tour guides have reviewed it, it is not in a major city or resort town, the architecture is ordinary, it's not old, and it's not in prime real estate. The hotel is part of a chain. It's hosted a single major wedding. Right now, it seems as if a middle school student wrote it, using qualitative rather than quantifiable language. If it were kept, it would have to be 100 % re-written to be an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Australia Institute of Waterproofing[edit]

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

WP:COI promotional article that seems to fail WP:GNG from a quick verbatim Google News search. Advertised on this website that offers Wikipedia page creation for $400 (title is censored, but subject is clearly named in the body and censoring was lazy). Article creator has had another promotional article deleted before.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolute spam article, nothing but promotion of the organisation. WWGB (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. WP:PROMO applies here too. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. TH1980 (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:SPAM, and WP:SALT. In 2006, this could have been overlooked, but in 2022, everyone knows that Wikipedia is a United States charity, and we are not a free web host for a for-profit group from Oz Bearian (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominated by a confirmed, blocked sockpuppet with no other contributions. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Theatre Army Productions[edit]

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

~~No Notable work visible on this page WP:GNG Rohit5001849W (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Rohit5001849W (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saville (1778 ship)[edit]

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

No evidence found of any notability, same databases, primary sources and passing mentions as in previous AfDs for similar articles. Fram (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the set index Saville (ship) as an alternative to deletion. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be better to turn that set index into a redirect to the one remaining article, instead of having a short list of two unremarkable ships and one perhaps notable one (not clear if that last one would actually survive AfD either). Fram (talk) 09:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at worst merge, adding references to the target. Nevertheless, I am extremely dubious as to whehter any of the ships listed there is individually notable and thus whether that article should not also be subject to AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Even if more documentation on the ship exists, there is nothing to indicate it is any more notable than any of the other whaling vessels of the era. Chagropango (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear GNG fail. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and move to Judge Garland. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Garland J[edit]

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

I am not finding any connection to Patrick Garland and Garland J. For Merrick Garland, I am finding instanes of "(Garland, J., dissenting)", etc. I am not sure how likely it would be that someone might look up Garland J - but wouldn't it be Garland, J? –CaroleHenson (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Disambiguations. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I looked up "Garland J" from the reference at Chaigley Farms Ltd v Crawford, Kaye and Grayshire Ltd: 1996, and needed to then find the UK judge rather than Merrick Garland. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a valid dab. There are not multiple people commonly referred to as "Garland J". MB 15:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move over Judge Garland, leaving Garland J as a redirect. We have plenty of disambiguation pages by title for judges (Judge Smith (disambiguation), Judge Archer, Judge Newman, etc.). The resulting redirect would be harmless. BD2412 T 19:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, agree with Move over per BD2412 I agree with the approach by BD2412. –CaroleHenson (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are two judges named Garland. In law, judges are usually referred to by their surname followed by a J. This is the case for both US and UK judges, although with some exceptions. If moved over to Judge Garland, there should be a disambiguation rather than a redirect to AG Garland.Dawkin Verbier (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Judge Garland as BD2412 suggests. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I added a third entry for Rice Garland from the Louisiana Supreme Court (and apparently they were not yet titled "Justice" back then). Adumbrativus (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Judge Garland. A worthwhile disambiguation page. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Judge Garland. Bruxton (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tasha Santiago[edit]

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

As it stands, this article raises concerns under WP:BIO1E since Santiago has no claim to notability apart from her death. I considered restructuring it as an article about the event (i.e. Murder of Tasha Santiago), but that topic doesn't meet WP:NEVENT: my WP:BEFORE search of GNews, GBooks, Newspapers.com, ProQuest, Archives of Sexuality and Gender, etc. found only routine news coverage that did not persist after the end of the case. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Sexuality and gender, and California. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet any notability standard. Looking at WP:VICTIM, WP:BIO1E, we don't seem to have a situation that meets those requirements, and all coverage appears to have been routine with little continuing coverage. Agree with nominator's comments. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DWXS[edit]

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

Declined prod. Another non-notable radio station in the Philippines. A plea to the topic area editors: Please give me your three best sources, and if you don't have three good sources to pass the GNG, then redirect to a list. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:BEFORE shows nothing that can pass WP:BCAST. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G3: Definitely a WP:HOAX. Per NTC listing, the call letters never existed and Radio Sorsogon Network owns a station in Sorsogon City, but it's not on 95.9 FM. The creator of the article is the one behind another hoax station, whose article was nominated foor deletion a month ago. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Germany–Guyana relations[edit]

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

These relations are very limited. No embassies, 1 agreement, no significant trade, no leader visits. Fails WP:GNG. Most of the relations happen in a multilateral context through CARICOM. LibStar (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Germany, and South America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: has WP:BEFORE been followed? If so, what was the outcome of it? A rapid search has shown a few pieces in Guyanese media about bilateral relations with Germany, and I don't see an appraisal of said sources in the nomination. Pilaz (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I currently lack the time to do a full search before the end of the initial 7-day discussion period, but here are the sources I found that seem to be fit for WP:GNG: Stabroek News, Guyana Chronicle, OilNow Guyana, OilNow on Guyanan oil exports to Germany, Guyana Chronicle on the outgoing ambassador, this business magazie. From History of Guyana, I also see that East Germany signed a trade agreement with Guyana in the 1960s, and that German explorer Robert Hermann Schomburgk allegedly mapped the island on behalf of the British. So clearly there's a lot of material to discuss, and I would expect some coverage about the two aforementioned events too (passing? In-depth? We'll see). A relist would be in order here. Pilaz (talk) 17:30, 31 October 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, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources found by Pilaz and those existing in the article convince me that WP:GNG can be met here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the previous sources I found. Bilateral relations are rarely exciting, but there is some coverage in this particular relationship with seemingly-reliable sources which I think addresses the nomination's concerns. Should be enough for a start-class article. Pilaz (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Procedural close. This is a very confusing AFD. For most of this bundled nomination, the nominator is proposing that section headings in a primary article be deleted from that article but not the article itself. (?) These section headings are actually redirects that point to other articles which have not been tagged as being part of this deletion discussion. Depending on your goal, either the redirects need to be nominated at WP:RFD or the target pages they point to need to be nominated and tagged individually in a separate AFD nomination and the page creators notified. But nominating section headings in one article that are linked to redirects that are linked to other articles will not lead to a deletion of all of those targeted articles. If, instead, you wish to delete these sections of the article, that should be done through normal editing and not AFD.

Feel free to offer another bundled nomination of the articles you intended to nominate for deletion, you just must follow the guidelines for AFD article tagging and content creator notification. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vingtaine de Longueville[edit]

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

I think we should delete all the links in these sub-sections in the Vingtaine article. (Not the articles I listed, but the sub section in the vingtaine article)

Vingtaine, all the articles listed in this article are unnotable. Although they are real places, there isn't much info about them and no reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 02:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Jersey and Islands. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 02:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All the articles that are linked on the page should get deleted because they have the same source which is unreliable and they all have the same order.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 02:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: per WP:GEOLAND, "populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low". All vingtaines in Jersey are legally recognised, populated places. While there may be insufficient sources in the article(s) it doesn't mean sources don't exist, particularly offline such as in books. I suggest it would be better to tag articles with perceived unreliable sources with ((Unreliable sources)), ((Primary sources)) or ((Better source needed)) Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are real places but we are talking about the article. The article is unsourced and seems to be like someone wrote 3 seconds of the info and left it abandoned.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 01:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HelpingWorld: Please read WP:TOOSHORT. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect all to Vingtaine. Without any to say beyond existence, there shouldn't be separate articles. Further content could be covered in the main page per NOPAGE as well. Reywas92^Talk 23:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of the articles which the nominator proposes should be deleted are very short stubs, for example Vingtaine de la Ville. I would support redirecting or merging most, rather than all of the vigntaine articles, not to the vingtaine page but to each vingtaine's respective parish, and tagging them as 'R with possibilities'. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Curb Safe Charmer, could you be specific on the outcome you'd like to see here? This discussion has been relisted already and can be closed at any time. I know you have opinions about this nomination but you haven't spelled out exactly what you'd like to see Kept, Redirected or Merged. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've got off the fence and !voted below. I would not lose any sleep if these were to be redirected or merged, but as there are 41 articles in question, it would take me some time to review each and consider whether there is enough to merge, or whether a redirect with possibilities would be better. I don't have time to do that right now, I am sure though, that the nomination is misconceived and none should be deleted. The nomination is confusing - I think the nominator is saying they don't think any articles should be deleted, just the links to them at vingtaine, in which case AfD is not the right venue. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nom is incorrect that these are not notable, per WP:GEOLAND. It doesn't worry me that most are short, as contrary to the nom's claim that there are 'no reliable sources', offline sources exist and so there's scope to expand them. Some of them are unsourced or poorly sourced and should be tagged as such. On a technicality, if this AfD is proposing to delete multiple articles, WP:BUNDLE has not been followed and so contributors to and watchers of the articles concerned haven't been given the opportunity to contribute to the discussion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 16:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Benson[edit]

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

The article lacks sufficient proof of fulfilling the GNG, and a Google news search confuses the name with others named Wendy Benson. SIGCOV fail. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and United States of America. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing per nom from Google search 🔍.Kasar Wuya (talk) 9:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Ameerah1, see investigation) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was regular cast member in a number of sitcoms. Added some refs. Alrofficial (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Roles are all one-offs or bit parts. ACTOR isn't satisfied. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The name "Wendy Benson-Landes" provides relevant hits online, such as this write-up, which refers to the subject's part in The Young and the Restless, and this Los Angeles Times article, which notes the connection between the subject, her husband, and actor Jonathan Togo. But more to the point, there are many hits at newspapers.com, which appear to contain WP:SIGCOV. I will get a few articles clipped and then bring them over here. There's also the New York Times reference which Alrofficial added to the page. As regards WP:NACTOR, the subject had main or supporting roles in films like Wishmaster and James Dean (the latter is a TV film, but appears to have been quite a notable production all the same), as well as a main role in the short-lived TV series, Muscle, a 24-episode stint in the final two seasons of Unhappily Ever After, and recurring roles in various other shows. I think that, in combination, these roles are sufficient to meet WP:NACTOR. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dflaw4: I don't disagree with your assessment too much, though I'd like to point out that on our Wikipedia page Benson was not listed as a starring role on James Dean (2001 film), which are displayed in the infobox, therefore I disagree it is a significant role. Moreover, WP:NACTOR describes Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. I'm unconvinced that the Muscles (TV series) is notable by Wikipedia standards, the current page cites three sources, one of which is a non-SIGCOV single paragraph listicle, the other is a comprehensive book, WP:NFILM does state that Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database.[1] While there is no official guideline for television, it might be similar as well. From a quick search I found this about the 1995 show which is also trivial, so I'd be interested if you could elaborate how the show is notable. Otherwise, there seems to be two roles that might pass NACTOR, making notability borderline.

On WP:GNG the New York Times piece is a weddings piece that is announcement like, and is IMO debatably WP:SIGCOV. This ref you linked is also a non-SIGCOV image gallery. Further, how does Soap Opera Spy passes WP:RS guidelines? This basic about us page boasts a fan count, but there is no editorial policies to demonstrate a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. My search didn't find sufficient WP:USEBYOTHERS, and the authors doesn't seem to be subject-matter-experts. VickKiang (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, it would be great if you could provide more clippings from Newspapers.com! Thanks for your work! VickKiang (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she's notable enough. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough satisfy our notability guidelines. Bruxton (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: VickKiang's line of reasoning ought to be addressed by someone supporting "keep."
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify I'm at neutral, not at delete, but I'm also unsure if the current references are obviously enough to meet notability- are we referring to WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR here, Bearian? Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I was referring to NACTOR. Her performances as a long-running character on a major soap opera, as well as other supporting roles, makes her barely notable. If she was in a Prime Time show, she would be clearly notable. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that supporting roles could be considered as significant roles. Moreover, Bearian, I am assuming that you are referring to Muscle (TV series) as the major soap opera. WP:NACTOR states that Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, the article for Muscle (TV series) seems to only cite three references, first one with four mentions (debatably SIGCOV), second ref has a single mention, whereas the final reference is a routine listicle. Perhaps I'm missing something, as many keep voters make the case that the Muscles (TV series) definitely and obviously counts as one role towards NACTOR, but I'd like to know how the show is "notable" by Wikipedia standards. VickKiang (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are reviews for Muscle in Variety and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Additionally, she stars in Wishmaster. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reviews, with two reviews available Muscles is probably borderline notable, so I am probably neutral to weak keep leaning towards the former. VickKiang (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - to me she meets notability guidelines Flibbertigibbets (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure what the nominator means by "sufficient proof" but there are multiple cited sources that clearly cover her. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how anyone can look at the article references and consider them SIGCOV. One is TV Guide or other film/TV databases, another is a wedding announcement. Some seem to think that wedding announcement is SIGCOV but it is a column of 4 short paragraphs that talk about her and her groom's parents as much as it does the couple. Two are from soap magazines which might be acceptable but they are just short blurbs about casting, they are not even interviews. There is nothing in depth here. I don't think this coverage makes her "notable enough" (?), it just shows that she is a working actor like hundreds (thousands?) of others who obtain one episode TV series appearances and minor roles in a few films. I don't see that she played any "long-running characters" or even major recurring parts in notable TV series. According to IMDb, some of her recent appearances were as unnamed characters or she was uncredited. Bottom line, she doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Keep I think she narrowly passes NACTOR through her roles in Unhappily Ever After and Wishmaster. It would be a stronger keep if Muscle could be proven to be notable. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, she also starred in Beacon Hill, which might be notable. I was able to find one review here and various articles on the film, but I'm not sure those count towards notability since they aren't reviews. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I was able to find several reviews on Muscle including this and this. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Participants are unanimous that the subject passes WP:NPOL. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Marsh (politician)[edit]

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

I don’t believe that holding the position of Arizona State Mine Inspector makes someone notable. The sources I can see are all routine campaign pieces or announcements of his appointment so I don’t believe this is a GNG pass either. Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Arizona. Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is a state-wide office established by the Arizona Constitution. Mining is a most important industry in the and the Inspector's role/office is certainly notable. – S. Rich (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I moved the article from Draft to Main. The reason why I decided to move the article to main space is because Mine Inspector is a state constitutional office elected popularily. WP:NPOL states politicians who are elected to state/provincewide are presumed to be notable, therefore this passes GNG. Ueutyi (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is an elected officer not an appointed officer. As of Ballotpedia ^[1], he got 830,034 votes for becoming mine inspector which means 0.8 million peoples chose him as a inspector. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://ballotpedia.org/Paul_Marsh

Weak keep The position is not part of the Arizona Governor's Executive Dapartment, which would in effect make it a cabinet level position, thus clearly presumably notable under NPOL. Nevertheless, it is an elected state-wide position, although in this particular case, it was an unopposed election. Things aren't helped by the fact that sourcing (both in the article and elsewhere) appears somewhat weak. I've struggled to find anything that can unambiguously be considered indpendent SIGCOV. Nevertheless, it takes a pretty strong degree of logical contortion to claim he does not hold an elected state-wide position, so he does satisfy NPOL. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep he does meet WP:NPOL, but the lack of SIGCOV is a bit concerning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thakur Puran Singh[edit]

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

Autobiography does not meet WP:NBIO. The author has moved the draft to mainspace anyway, ignoring the advice on their user talk page, and has repeatedly removed maintenance templates from the top of the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do mot delete this it is a biography of a living person and write did a mistake but he doesn’t know the process so give him one chance KisanMazdoorSangathan (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Salt · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this page it is a autobiography of a living person and the writer doesn’t know the terms give him a fair chance KisanMazdoorSangathan (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Presidents of non notable organizations are not notable. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 09:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no prejudice against an editor in good standing recreating this article (presuming that the subject meets a notability standard) but I strongly object to any users using Wikipedia as a platform to promote themselves. The socking around this article is also completely contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. I'll admit that this isn't egregious enough for WP:G11 but the intent to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool is still present so this should be deleted on principle. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 03:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maimonides Schools for Jewish Studies[edit]

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

Lack of notability, zero references Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. All I find is a few generic listings and documents. Chagropango (talk) 08:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Judaism, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even after searching newspapers.com and sources available via Wikipedia Library, I only found the enabling legislation and 2 other sources that are useful for verification the school exists, but nothing else that contributes to notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. All other sources that came up on search engines are mirror sites of this WP article.

— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Crewes[edit]

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

Google, Google Books and Google News did not turn anything that can help pass WP:NACTOR. Most notable role is in Neighbours but the article's subject only played a role there for a few months. Also note that this article has been tagged for notability issues since June 2010. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Australia. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all appear to be minor roles. ACTOR not met. Oaktree b (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Appears to fail WP:ACTOR: arguably 25 episodes as a character in Neighbours is "significant" and could meet WP:NACTOR; however NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows", and none of his other roles appear to meet this. Additionally I can't find any RS so does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Cabrils (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ACTOR. LibStar (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Lim[edit]

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

Subject is a soccer player. Subject fails GNG for not having significant coverage by independent, reliable source for all of them either are not independent, not reliable or just passing mention including the Star Newspaper coverage which is an interview piece which make the soure not independent. Cassiopeia talk 00:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Malaysia. Cassiopeia talk 00:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He plays in the Super League which is fully-pro and the first and last citation from The Star seem in-depth to me. The Star website is independent, and I believe it is the oldest online news website in Malaysia and considered one of the most reliable. So I disagree with your assessment, this article has better sourcing than a lot of young English football player articles. Govvy (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this and this and this (all already in the article) which show GNG. Lazy & misleading nomination. Giant Snowman 21:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Player with ongoing career in the fully professional Malaysian top flight. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - While the !keep arguments above which rely on this footballer having an "ongoing career" or having played in a "fully pro" league should be ignored as they are contrary to WP:NSPORTS2022, I think there may be just enough coverage to indicate that the GNG could be met. I'm unimpressed with The Star's and Vocket FC's coverage, but H Metro has probably enough in interview/articles like the one GS noted and this. It would be easier to decide if there was more coverage of course. Jogurney (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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