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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Winters[edit]

David J. Winters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable investor, insufficient sigcov provided to establish notability. Jdcooper (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Jdcooper (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Business Week and the International Herald Tribune source seems to be significant and not a passing mention. I think this is a borderline case. Roost^T_C(Please ping me) 01:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Roostery123 both of those links are dead. Where did you find the articles please? Can you link me? MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] and [2]

@MaxnaCarta Here you go Roost^T_C(please ping me when replying) 05:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Roost The first one is definitely about him. The IHT one is a discussion that he took place in, so it's not a secondary source. Is the Barron's really only two lines, or am I not able to see the rest? Lamona (talk) 17:10, 24 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!} 00:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I not convinced he is notable. There is lots of primary coverage him talking, but its all passing mentions. I've not seen WP:THREE WP:SECONDARY sources that prove he is notable. Lots of these references seems to be dead and WP:BEFORE doesn't turn up much either. I do know his fund is closed. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 08:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reckless Behavior: Caught on Tape[edit]

Reckless Behavior: Caught on Tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I found no significant coverage after multiple searches including on Newspapers.com. SL93 (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. SL93 (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New Zealand and United States of America. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NFILM. I too could fine no reviews or other sources with significant coverage. I did find one book on cyber bullying where the film was briefly discussed, but it wasn't in-depth enough to count as significant coverage.4meter4 (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was stronger for some articles in this batch nomination than others, but on the whole it lent towards keep or redirect and I'm not going to attempt to unpick each one individually. – Joe (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe Place station[edit]

Canoe Place station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

• Bartlett's station
• Fire Place station
• Miller Place station
• Promised Land station
• Rocky Point station

Minor closed railroad stations without indication of notability. I cannot find any significant coverage of any of them, nor is it likely to exist: none survived into the public ownership era (with attendant coverage in government documents), none have surviving station building, and none are proposed for reopening. The only sources in the articles are fan sites and trivial mentions. For all, I would support keeping redirects to the relevant rail lines. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bartlett and Fireplace stations as those seem to be the most notable based on the current sources i do believe that it is possible to find information about the other stations as well so if the article creator is reading you can stop this afd by doing so NotOrrio (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect to each rail line is fine with me. Oaktree b (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How are these not notable? Those fan sites include images of public sources. I strongly disagree with moving to redirect or deleting them. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of them have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, as is required by WP:NOTABILITY. See the list I made above. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion. I've not done a detailed look for sources but if these can be expanded they should be kept, if they can't they should be merged and redirected. There is basically never a case for deletion of railway stations that verifiably exist or existed as at the very least they will always merit a redirect to a list entry. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Miller Place station and Rocky Point station; redirect Bartlett's station and Fire Place station to Ronkonkoma Branch; redirect Promised Land station and Canoe Place station (I might have to further research the latter) to Montauk Branch. (At the very least, do not delete any.) For the two Port Jefferson Branch stations, I found some significant coverage in this book (a whole chapter dedicated to the Wading River extension), and the stations appear to have been active long enough that additional coverage (including of their closure) is likely to exist. The other three were active for a much shorter period and I could not find comparable significant coverage. Moreover, there are a number of shuttered LIRR stations fitting the nominator's statement, but are not all on equal footing with each other; this AfD is already potentially a WP:TRAINWRECK, so I would propose creating separate AfDs in each case if this is a widespread content issue. ^Complex/_Rational 14:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Searching inside that book shows that both Rocky Point and Miller Place only have about 3 sentences each. Potentially useful if other sources are available, but not significant coverage on its own. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the two Port Jeff Branch stations, no comment on the others. Although there may not be coverage in sources just yet, the Wading River Branch has been discussed for restoration and reopening by local residents and politicians from time to time; the most recent conservations focused on a proposed seasonal service during the summer months only to relive chronic congestion on NY 25A. No idea if it will ever happen, but there is at least a possible future for these stations. The others I have a feeling are probably long forgotten about at this point, but I don't know if there might be notable history for them, even if it is from the PRR days. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A theoretical possible future does not confer notability if there aren't sources that actually provide significant coverage - that's precisely why WP:CRYSTALBALL exists. There is little if any actual coverage of a restoration in reliable sources, and essentially nothing that discusses Rocky Point or Miller Place in that context. What currently available reliable sources provide significant coverage for these stations? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Canoe Place station, Miller Place station and Rocky Point station. Merge and redirect the stations to the articles about their respective LIRR lines. Merge the other stations to the articles about their respective LIRR lines. Namely,  redirect Bartlett's station and Fire Place station to Ronkonkoma Branch; and redirect Promised Land station to Montauk Branch. The two stations on the Port Jefferson Branch may be notable as part of the Wading River Extension, as ComplexRational mentions above, so I'm not 100% sure about these. Even if these two stations don't have their own articles, they could be mentioned in the Port Jeff Branch article. But I don't think any of these articles should be deleted either. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited my !vote. My original !vote is here. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all to their respective lines. There's not much to justify their retention as standalone articles. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Canoe Place station, Miller Place station and Rocky Point station. I researched these stations and found additional sources not listed in the source analysis above and incorporated the material into the associated articles. The Canoe Place station appears to have had a much higher ridership compared to other minor LIRR stations and flag stops given the popularity of the Fisherman's Special trains. The Miller Place station played an important role in the development of the town as a resort destination in the early 20th century. There are current plans to renovate the former station house at Rocky Point into a VFW museum as part of a senior housing development. No comment on the other stations. Transpoman (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Canoe Place station, Miller Place station and Rocky Point station per WP:HEY. No opinion on the others.4meter4 (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Women's U21 European Volleyball Championship squads[edit]

2022 Women's U21 European Volleyball Championship squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST. A list of mostly non-notable players. LibStar (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not covered in detail in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The volleyball federations for the respective nations are of course not independent. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per all of the above. Also concerned about the sheer number of redlinks on this page; there shouldn't be redlinks there if the individuals in question are not notable, and article creator is advised to learn more about WP:BLP. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A possible rename can be discussed on the article talk page since there is no consensus here on the subject. Editors are encouraged to expand this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seneca mythology[edit]

Seneca mythology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is basically a list article, of which most entries don’t have articles of their own, that lacks content, reliable sources, apparently is an orphan except links only by template:religious topics. Any real material here should probably be merged into Iroquois mythology, but there isn't much. Peter Flass (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fine by me, since it's insulting to call Native religions "mythology" and usually any concrete information is only meant for community members, not the general public. Yuchitown (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

  Does that also apply to Greek mythology, Roman mythology, Norse mythology, Celtic mythology, etc, etc? Or are you saying it only applies where religions have not generally been superseded by Christianity or another major religion? They are no more nor less mythology. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The question how to properly phrase this notwithstanding, looking into the linked Google/Scholar/Books searches, there seem to be enough secondary sources to expand this very basic article into full-fledged one. Daranios (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For now, why not just add a "religion" section to the Seneca people article? If it ever grew to a point that it needed its own article, then that would be easy enough to do. Yuchitown (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

  The current article is not exactly long. So if we do not go below the information we have now (I am assuming in good faith that it's correct), then I am also fine with a merge and redirect to Seneca people as suggested. Daranios (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename it to something like (List of) Seneca deities etc.  oncamera  _{(talk page)} 23:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m not sure “deities” would be the correct term.Peter Flass (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly a notable topic, although it needs rewriting. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Iroquois mythology is a much more developed artivle, and there is considerable overlap.Peter Flass (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject heading, "Seneca mythology" (and there are other related terms but this one is dead on) brings up 7 books in the Library of Congress catalog, such as:
  • McElwain, Thomas. Mythological tales and the Allegany Seneca : a study of the socio-religious context of traditional oral phenomena in an Iroquois community / by Thomas McElwain. Stockholm : Almqvists & Wiksell International, [1978]
  • Curtin, Jeremiah, 1835-1906, comp. Seneca Indian myths, collected by Jeremiah Curtin. New York, E.P. Dutton & Company [c1923]
  So I'm pretty sure that this stub can be expanded with substantial sources. Lamona (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a stub, but the topic seems notable. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:B11F:818B:48F1:A0FD (talk) 01:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Preachers of L.A.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Haizlip[edit]

Jay Haizlip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete: no more notable than previous AFD. Google search indicates subject is of questionably borderline notability, if at all. MurrayGreshler (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Sportspeople. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and California. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Preachers of L.A.. Doesn't seem to be notable independent of the show. Jahaza (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I find nothing about him (or the TV shows) in mainstream publications like LA Times, which do cover the TV screen pretty closely. Other than Christianity Today, the other sources seem to be minor in reach. I see no reason not to redirect to Preachers of L.A. but I think we should look at trimming down that article. Not only is the show no longer in production, but it may be that the company that produced it isn't either - their California business license has lapsed, and that's about all I could find out about it. Lamona (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Preachers of L.A.. The previous AfD was a keep and shows references such as Christianity Today, Christian Post and others so there is justification for a merge imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Laperi[edit]

Arnold Laperi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to be a non-notable basketballer. Was a member of the championship team of the Albanian 2nd tier league, but this does not confer notability itself. A WP:BEFORE search, including a search on newspapers.com, revealed literally nothing except some stats, so he appears to fail WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, Albania, and United States of America. Curbon7 (talk) 22:29, 14 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!} 23:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 10:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CNPTV[edit]

CNPTV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I cannot find any sources to establish a GNG pass. Non-notable tv channel. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Connecticut. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:23, 14 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!} 23:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 28 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. WaggersTALK 16:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Shale[edit]

Kerry Shale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Throughout the entire history of this article, it has been filled with a ton of unreferenced information. The only two existing citations prove the actor's appearances in a few of the works stated in the article. Also considering this is a BLP, it's time to blow it up and start over. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 16:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 16:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As always, an actor's notability is not established by the article simply listing acting roles — having acting roles is literally the job description, so every actor who exists at all would get an automatic notability freebie if simply listing roles were all it took. Rather, an actor's notability hinges not on the list of roles itself but on the amount of reliable source coverage about him and his roles that can or can't be used to support the article with — biographical articles about him, reviews of his film or television projects which single out his performance for dedicated attention (as opposed to just namechecking his presence), evidence that he's been a winner of or nominee for a major acting award, etc. — but the only "references" here are a schedule listing on the self-published website of the television network that aired a show he was in and an IMDB-like directory of voice actors, neither of which are reliable or notability-building sources at all, and the amount of completely unreferenced information here implies conflict of interest editing by the subject or somebody close to him. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's rather a personal than rational decision, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2A02:8109:A83F:EA9F:98DA:8909:635A:851C 2A02:8109:A83F:EA9F:1111:E198:B5D6:B9B (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not personal. It is a rational decision. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty of coverage, for example A steady pace for the big party Kerry Shale returns to Edinburgh this year with a new one-man show and new attitude The Stage - Thursday 07 August 1997; Kerry Shale's moment of truth on the motorway The Stage - Thursday 24 October 1985; Dreaming of Babylon KERRY SHALE The Stage - Thursday 09 October 1986; Talking with Kerry Shale: The English love his accent: Meet the Vancouver-trained actor who speaks for us over there The Vancouver Sun; Vancouver, B.C. 04 Sep 1999 Piecesofuk (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A couple of international reviews: An Octogenarian 'Hamlet' With a Catskills Flavor and Kerry Shale's The Prince of West End Avenue Piecesofuk (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  He won a Writers' Guild Award in 1993 for his radio adaption of Dr. Strangelove https://writersguild.org.uk/writers-guild-awards-1993/ Piecesofuk (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Some more reviews that specifically discuss his writing and/or acting found on Nexis: "Listen, We're Family", The Observer, November 7th 2013; "The 2000 Year Old Man", The Evening Standard, March 13th 2015; "The Kubrick Test offers a first-hand account of the director's working methods", The New Statesman, April 1st 2020. He's been a very prolific actor in the UK for 30+ years - particularly on BBC radio and audiobooks - so I imagine there's probably more like this buried in the hundreds of passing mentions of things he's been in! Adam Sampson (talk) 18:50, 15 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!} 19:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be at GNG with the source listed in the last two comments; I'd encourage the editors to work them into the article and expand it. Good work everyone. Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets GNG with references provided above (international coverage none the less!) Nfitz (talk) 20:56, 29 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!} 05:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

African Honey Bee (organization)[edit]

African Honey Bee (organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This company does not have enough press coverage to deserve Wikipedia article. I do not think random "micro-beekeeping business" deserves a Wikipedia page. This is not an important or noteworthy company and its reach is small. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Africa. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete feels promotional, I only find thing about the bees themselves, nothing for this organization. Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 29 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!} 23:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lund Airport[edit]

Lund Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NBUILD. ICAO and Swedish AIS charts for the airport no longer exist, zero mentions from news articles of the airport in either English or Swedish, only sources of information for the airport are self-published sources (see, for example, this swedish blog or this flight simulator site). Fermiboson (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There is actually quite a few articles about the airport when looking at Swedish news. A w:sv:Mediearkivet search for "Hasslanda flygfält" or "Hasslanda flygplats" turns up a long row of articles, typically around 500 words, focused on Hasslanda Airport, even though coverage is limited to more recent articles. I'd imagine a search at tidningar.kb.se, the newspaper archives at the Royal Library of Sweden, would turn up (or hint at: it's difficult to access) more, but they seem to be having technical difficulties right now. I'll check back later. /Julle (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Admittedly not a clear-cut keep with fantastic refs, but the article is no longer unsourced; someone with proper access to the newspaper archives of the Swedish Royal Library should hopefully be able to add more. /Julle (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Not the best article on the encyclopedia but seeing it has a good number of references (for a stub), it should not be deleted.

_Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 15:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - now meets WP:GNG. Hopefully will be expanded over time. - Ahunt (talk) 16:10, 29 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goldberg Segalla[edit]

Goldberg Segalla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Reads like G11 promotion of the firm. I almost speedy-deleted it right there, but given the history and the fact that it was at one point accepted through the AFC process, I figured I would go through the AFD process instead. The sources seem to be largely press releases, the sources from the Buffalo News come up as 404 when I tried them just now. @Robert McClenon:, how different is the current status of the article from when you accepted a couple years ago? Bkissin (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this isn't Linked in, I don't need a list of every office you have. There are no articles discussing the firm, beyond confirming they exist. Routine law firm from what I see. Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as written. I would actually expect a firm this size and with this breadth to have coverage showing notability, but keeping this in the encyclopedia as is would be detrimental to the credibility of the project. Current sources are excessively local or not independent. BD2412 T 21:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as written. This article is entirely the work of single-purpose editors and has a smell of UPE. I think I made a mistake seven years ago. It has been expanded since I accepted it, but the expansion has been the addition of corporate stuff and of puffery. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 29 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!} 18:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Money[edit]

Slow Money (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I think that this company's Wikipedia page should be deleted. I was trying to read through the references to get more information on this company and to improve the article, but most of the references either talk about a book, are the website of this non-profit, or are some other website that isn't a newspaper. There is one newspaper that talks about this company (the Wall Street Journal) that's in the references. The Slow Money company's reach is small and it doesn't get a lot of newspapers writing about the company, even if I google the company. I don't believe this company is important enough to be on Wikipedia. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. WaggersTALK 16:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iran–South Korea football rivalry[edit]

Iran–South Korea football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. A quick before shows the article is riddled with unreliable sources, and primary sources. The article literally has only five sources, the first one is dead (teammelli.com), the second one is a random totally unreliable website (taegukwarriors.com), the third source is a 2013 archive of FIFA itself, the fourth source (CNN) and fifth source (espn.in) doesn't talk about any rivalry between Iran and South Korea. Google results showed up routine coverage from a few sports sites. If anyone can uncover some significant, and or in-depth coverage to satisfy GNG, I would be happy to withdraw. TatesTopG (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2022

• 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 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, South Korea, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - probably delete The article title is completely miss-leading, this is just a head to head stats page. WP:NOSTATS apply. Govvy (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NRIVALRY.LibStar (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a notable rivalry, only source in the article that uses the term is a primary source [3]. Fails WP:NRIVALRY, and is just a head-to-head stats lists, which isn't needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NRIVALRY. This reads more as a list of results between the two national teams, but also fails WP:NLIST. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Adding these kinds of "rivalries" to Wikipedia would litter it with content that belongs more in a forum. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not a rivalry, certainly not notable. GiantSnowman 19:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - zero background information according to what, who and why is this match a rivalry, its a made-up "rivalry" just because they played a couple of important matches in the past; the article is also basically just a list of head-to-head matches and nothing else, thus failing both WP:NSTATS and WP:NRIVALRY. Its true that the FIFA source (#3 in the article) calls it "the two sides have developed one of Asia's greatest rivalries", but its based solely on many matches played. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a notable subject Bruxton (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• ‘’’Delete’’’ topic lacks both notability and sources. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:B11F:818B:48F1:A0FD (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of reflexes (by organ)[edit]

List of reflexes (by organ) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Long-stalled list meant to serve as an alternative for a list that's already pretty navigable, on an axis that isn't that useful. Suggest either deleting or redirecting to Template:Reflex, which does essentially the same thing but better. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Lists. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I’m not sure what niche this page is meant to fit into, also, it would be a huge complex page with foreseeable arguments on what counts as a “reflex”? TheMouseMen (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Useless. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sorting by part of the nervous system or type of reflex (as in the aforementioned template) seems more sensible. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with Draken Browser and Tamzin Dronebogus (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This isn't fundamentally a terrible idea, but as noted it's hopelessly incomplete (the only organ included is "Eye", and that has been the case since the article's creation in 2008). I don't think redirecting to Template:Reflex is appropriate because that template is not really organized by organ. It is also not entirely clear what "by organ" means—all reflexes have two components after all: a sensory/stimulus/input component and a motor/response/output component. If we want a list of reflexes "by organ", I think the best way to do that would be to use a table with different columns for the two components, and I think the best place to do that would be at list of reflexes, which could be converted to that format. TompaDompa (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is content fork of pages reflexes and List of reflexes, not a legitimate standalone list. My very best wishes (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just a mess of unsourced, unlinked and trivial junk. I think I sense SNOW, folks. Should we have an article called "list of words in Indonesian" or "list of languages of the European Union"? Or a list of communes in France? It is getting absurd to this list. CPORfan (talk), 02:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the list appears to get uber-specific. As the nominator points out we already have a useful list on the subject. Bruxton (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per A7. (non-admin closure) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TToMoon[edit]

TToMoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No establishment of notability with WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Possible speedy as A7. No real indication of notability, not verifiable. --Mvqr (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, speedily for preference. All sources are junk and the claims are a bit embarrassing for Wikipedia to make in a live article. (I have removed some of it.) --bonadea contributions talk 19:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Science, and Astronomy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 28 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. Speedy Keep given the nominator is a sockpuppet and there is no support for Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Houghton[edit]

Jeremy Houghton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject of this BLP does not meet notability guidelines. After searching in good faith, was not able to find sufficient independent sources establishing notability. AmeliaWillems (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Arts, and England. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 17:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to be notable to me. Search Google I find he was Official Artist for the 2012 Olympics, Official Wimbledon Artist, Artist in Residence for Goodwood, Artist in Residence for Northampton Saints. Some sources: BBC Northampton Saints appoint first artist in residence; Tatler Renowned artist Jeremy Houghton is creating a unique and exclusive body of work to celebrate the Jubilee; County and Town House Wimbledon Insider: Jeremy Houghton, Championship Artist; Goodwood A year in the life of Goodwood's Artist in Residence Piecesofuk (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If all of the above claims were correct, I would be open to entertaining a position that the subject is notable. However, it is verifiable by a simple Google search that there was no "Official Artist of the 2012 Olympics". There was an official poster artist, and there were 12 official artists who created additional official posters, but Jeremy Houghton was not one of them. The only claims that this artist was the "Official Artist for the 2012 Olympics" come from the artist himself. While it is verifiable that this artist was an Artist in Residence at Goodwood, I would argue that being an artist in residence at a private commercial event venue that is not significant in any way in the art world does not confer any notability to an artist. Similarly, being an artist in residence for a rugby team (Northampton Saints) does not confer notability.

  Additionally, the articles linked to above do not in my opinion meet Wikipedia's guidelines for independent sources and non-promotion. The first link (Northampton Saints appoint first artist in residence) directly quotes an official press release issued by the artist and the rugby team (Northampton Saints appoint first artist in residence). The remaining three sources linked to are PR interviews with the artist himself.

  Ultimately, I think the question of notability here comes down to whether being an artist in residence for a couple non-significant entities like a rugby team (Northampton Saints) and a commercial event venue (Goodwood House) establishes the level of notability required for an article. AmeliaWillems (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Excuse me AmeliaWillems, I may be reading the pages wrong, but it appears that the only article you have touched on WP is this one, and all 5 of those edits are related to AfD on this article. Am I missing something? Is there something we should know? Lamona (talk) 05:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I acknowledge that I am a new editor and recognize that edits from new editors should be examined with extra scrutiny. I have no conflict of interest. I made the jump to become an editor after happening across this page and being surprised that a page that was such blatant self-promotion existed on WP. Just as my edits as a new editor should be examined with scrutiny, it should also be examined with scrutiny that the original creator of this page, and primary contributor, has only ever contributed to one page (this one) in their eight years as a Wikipedia contributor, and has made over 50 edits all with the clear intention of promoting the subject of the article. AmeliaWillems (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has a number of problems and the un-cited information needs to be removed, ditto the copy of the painting. I also note the un-acknowledged COI on User_talk:Simone_Hancox, although the COI seems pretty obvious. There are at least two reliable sources: The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian. Other sources may support some of the information here, but cleanup is needed. Lamona (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Fleming Bruce[edit]

Catherine Fleming Bruce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article about a writer and political candidate, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing either WP:AUTHOR or WP:NPOL. As always, unelected candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se -- the notability bar for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while a non-winning candidate gets to have an article only if either (a) she can demonstrate that she already had preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy, or (b) she can mount a credible claim that her candidacy was a special case of significantly greater notability than most other people's candidacies.
But this demonstrates neither of those things: her prior work as a writer and historical preservationist is referenced solely to a podcast and a primary source, which do not establish the encyclopedic notability of that work, and the election campaign is referenced solely to the purely expected volume of run of the mill campaign coverage that every candidate in any election can always show, which does not establish a reason why her candidacy would be of more enduring significance than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, and South Carolina. Bearcat (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She doesn't meet POL and I can't find anything for AUTHOR. Appears to have been used to bolster her campaign, which I think she lost.Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering the article was created 5 days after the general election, and the creator is an established editor, doubt to the 2nd sentence. Please WP:AGF. Curbon7 (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these notes - did manage to find additional sources, which I was unable to do for some of the other former candidate pages I created! The sources suggest that the book received significant critical attention. ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment She lost her election, so she's an activist as far as AfD is concerned. Nothing notable about her career. Still a !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - an unelected politician is still a politician per WP:NPOL, although WP:BASIC appears to be a relevant guideline to consider for this BLP, because she has had more than a political career. There is some biographical and career coverage: Columbia activist enters 2022 US Senate race to take on SC’s Tim Scott in November (The State, Jan 2022), 3 women vying for Democratic nomination in US Senate primary to challenge GOP’s Tim Scott (Post and Courier, May 2022), coverage of her and her book: Catherine Fleming Bruce Chronicles the Struggle to Maintain Civil Rights Monuments (Post and Courier Free Times, 2017/2019, includes secondary content in addition to interview, e.g. her book "won the 2017 Historic Preservation Book Prize from the University of Mary Washington’s Center for Historic Preservation. The City of Columbia also honored Bruce at a July 18 ceremony"), more on her work: South Carolina’s first black surgeon earns national recognition (Post and Courier, 2019/2020, includes "Catherine Fleming Bruce, a researcher who highlights South Carolina’s black history, has been instrumental in getting Spann’s office that recognition"), briefly quoted as "preservationist Catherine Fleming Bruce, author of The Sustainers: Being, Building and Doing Good through Activism in the Sacred Spaces of Civil Rights, Human Rights and Social Movements" in Take a virtual tour of South Carolina’s only civil rights museum (National Geographic, 2020), ongoing work: Local groups trying to preserve South Carolina's black medical history (News19, 2022, includes "Catherine Fleming Bruce is a political activist. She is also working to preserve Columbia's Black medical history" and quotes), and brief coverage of community activism: Lower Richland residents, officials wary of home-building burst in rural area (Post and Courier, 2021, "Catherine Fleming Bruce, a Columbia activist, recently played host to a collection of community leaders for a news conference in Lower Richland...). There appears to be WP:SUSTAINED coverage of various aspects of her political, preservationist, and activist career, as well as some biographical information that when combined, support her notability and can further develop the article. Beccaynr (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC) - update !vote to remove 'weak' per additions by Bridget - Beccaynr (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I just added 3 articles from The State to cover her 1993 documentary film, a visitors guide for historic sites in Richmond County she produced around that time, and commentary from the newspaper on both of those works. I also added info on Collaborative for Community Trust, a local organization she founded in 1995, and their effort to restore the home of activist Modjeska Simkins in Columbia, SC. I'm confident there's even more media coverage on her activism from this period since I only added articles from that one newspaper out of other SC publications while searching on Newspapers.com. Bridget (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess changes to the article since the AFD nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see reliable sources publishing about her and the argument to keep is well articulated above. CT55555(talk) 15:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Beccaynr and Bridget. Passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 22:00, 30 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. Legoktm (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brigette Peterson[edit]

Brigette Peterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of a mayor, not adequately sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. While her city is large and significant enough that a mayor would get to keep an article that was substantive and well-sourced, mayors don't get an automatic notability freebie just for existing per se -- the notability bar for a mayor is not passed by writing "Brigette Peterson is a mayor who exists, the end", it's passed by writing and sourcing a substantive article about the political significance of her mayoralty: specific things she did in the mayor's chair, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with a lot more knowledge about Arizona politics than I've got can improve it to the necessary standard -- but she isn't automatically entitled to have an article just because she exists, if what's already here now is all the effort anybody can actually be bothered to put into it. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Arizona. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Mayor of towns are not notable. LordVoldemort728 (talk) 07:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Gilbert AZ is a sizable city, not a town — but even mayors of cities, even very big cities, still have to be shown to pass WP:NPOL #2 on substance and sourcing, and still aren't given "inherent" notability freebies for articles that are this minimalistically written and sourced. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Gilbert has a population of 260,000, larger than many cities as noted by nom. Notability is based on coverage. There is a minor mention in A Tennessee newspaper and many more in other states which shows some non-local coverage. More sigcov includes another source with statewide coverage of the First Amendment issue, and this bio in a Boston-area newspaper. There is lots of statewide coverage in The Arizona Republic such as this. I think this is just barely enough to establish notability and enough to develop an acceptable article. MB 14:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Gilbert is a sizeable town, it is in fact the biggest "town" in the United States in regards to population. Bbraxtonlee (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The size of Gilbert has nothing to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for mayors. It's whether the mayor can be shown to get over WP:GNG on her sourceability or not that determines whether a mayor is notable or not, and the population of the place she was mayor of has nothing to do with anything. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, Bearcat, but frequently in AFD discussions about mayors or lists of mayors, the size of the town or city gets mentioned as a factor in determining significance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Joe (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North Wales TV[edit]

North Wales TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article is almost entirely about predecessor television organisations in the area. Company is an ultra-local TV broadcaster, the only news coverage seems to be about it's criticism, prior to its launch, of not making programmes in Wales. I can't see any other reliable journalistic coverage of "North Wales TV" (the phrase is occasionally used for articles about TV made in North Wales). Time for it to go, unless someone knows something I don't. Sionk (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Wales. Sionk (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I see no reason to delete this article. It has many independent references and whilst it is a local broadcaster there is no reason to remove this article for that reason.Rillington (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my nomination, almost all the article and independent references are not about North Wales TV. Sionk (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:24, 28 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!} 06:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Shapiro (musician)[edit]

Harvey Shapiro (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Highly respected, but not high-profile cellist. The sources are lacking for WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A Google search turns up an article on Interlude HK and another on The Plain Dealer about how he gifted his cello to Daniel Müller-Schott. Not able to look up myself at the moment, but am confident that more may turn up in an archival newspaper search. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the above sources, would appear to just past GNG. I can't find anything for him however. Oaktree b (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As suspected, ample testimony to Shapiro's notability turns up in archival sources. He was the winner of a Naumberg Prize, which alone ought to secure this article's place based on WP:ANYBIO. Shapiro's professional debut was also covered by none other than Winthrop Sargeant. A selection of some articles about Shapiro follows: [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. I will try to add these and expand the article later this week (unless somebody else beats me to it). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as newspaper articles that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 28 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. Given the lack of comment after 2 relists and that it's ineligible for soft deletion, I'm closing this as no consensus. Legoktm (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gwaun Troed-rhiw-seiri a Llyn Mynydd-gorddu[edit]

Gwaun Troed-rhiw-seiri a Llyn Mynydd-gorddu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

PROD removed but no indication of notability. This is listed as a site of special scientific interest and is also listed on our List of SSSIs in Ceredigion and discussed on Trefeurig where it is explained it is an SSSI because the marshy grassland there is considered rare. But that is all that distinguishes it and there is no significant coverage of the issue (and over 12% of land in Wales is listed as an SSSI). This fails WP:GEOLAND on every category and particularly because it does not name one place but two. Gwaun Troed-rhiw-seiri is a moorland area (Gwaun is moorland) and Llyn Mynydd-gorddu is an upland lake (technically just a pond) (Llyn being a lake). The only named feature on the Ordinance Survey maps is Mynydd Gorddu itself, which is a 300 metre high hill that now sports a windfarm. There is not sufficient information available to construct an article in its own right and it is not notable for an an article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It only has around 290 Google hits but the Welsh Wikipedia article does have more information but the reference is dead. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, Welsh Wikipedia seems to have referred to the original SSSI listing which included a survey of plant species and varieties found at the site. As you say, the link has gone away because CCW was subsumed into Natural Resources Wales (NRW), who presumably have this information somewhere but don't seem to have published it. Even if we had it, what we have is a list of plants found at two related sites, but not uniquely there. What we don't have is any secondary treatment of the SSSI at all. Being an SSSI you might think that there were scientists studying it, but if so, they don't seem to have published anything. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:18, 28 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. – Joe (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1994–95 Toros Neza season[edit]

1994–95 Toros Neza season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Season-article without any sources for the season itself The Banner talk 19:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 19:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 5 sources: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] (season itself subsection Matches), the first two regards the ban of Neza 86 stadium how the franchise changed its name for the 1994-95 season recovering its original denomination Toros Neza. The link number 3 is regarding to the coach, it is clearly how the link states he managed the team during the 1994-95 season. The reference 4 is a link of the goalkeeper, it was a player transferred in for the 1994-95 season. The reference number 6 is about Centre back defender Luis Carlos Perea it is clear how it states he played for the club during the 1994-95 season. Reference number 6 is linked to the 1994-95 Mexico season with RSSSF page, the structure of the article consisted of information about these tables (group and overall), matches, and goalscorers round by round. The link is a reference for the 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season. Reference number 7 is linked to the squad statistics created on the article and states clearly the players of the team for the 1994-95 season. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - these kind of articles are notable, and this one possibly is, but I cannot see any significant coverage. If sources are found ping me. GiantSnowman 18:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've showed and explained the sources one by one, the references are journals, TV stations, the structure of the article, the links and now they created a new term: "coverage", maybe tomorrow they will create another one to delete the article. My article was reviewed and approved now is censored with new terms. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Mister user:Onel5969 Hello Sir, I'm created The article 1994-95 Toros Neza season and you reviewed during autumn, now the article is nominated to be deleted even it is properly sourced with 7 references. Can you post that the article is not unsourced?. Thank you. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article was reviewed by user:Onel5969 and includes 7 references/sources/links. The Competitions section links two tables to 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season the subsection results by round or position by round is properly sourced and linked to https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html same applies to subsection Matches. It is not copyviolation due to it does not exist a similar page on RSSSF, there is a Overall page including 259 teams and hundreds of matches. However my article contains only the matches for the club in question and I did not copy from that site and paste over here, I use the info even it is clear is not the same. Also, that information is available on the Wikipedia Spanish version of 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are adding RSSSF everywhere. You know that page is copyright protected? The Banner talk 17:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False. RSSSF states: "You are free to copy this document in whole or part provided that proper acknowledgement is given to the authors. All rights reserved." Acknowledgements properly included. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 17:32, 6 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!} 21:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted AfD per DRV
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't see how any of the sources provide in-depth analysis of Toros Neza for this season, which is what GNG would require. The only one that helps build the article is RSSSF but that's just pure results listings and doesn't contain any meaningful prose. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm watching Nederland crushing the "U.S. masculine team soccer" 3-1 with my friends Nfitz (talk · contribs) and comments arouse about why U.S. and Nederland did not want to play in Russia 2018, They were really scared about Putin. Articles that pass NSEASONS (which is a guideline) should provide reliable sources to meet GNG; but unlike athletes, it's not like they must. As it does pass an SNG it doesn't need to meet GNG explicitly - at least not immediately. But I don't know why anyone would think that seasons articles for teams in the best league in North America in a football-mad country wouldn't meet GNG. Looks like that many rank this league 9th in the world currently, compared to 15th for MLS. There's no doubt that the calibre of teams in this league is higher than MLS. And yet we seasons articles for all but two of the 1996 MLS teams (the first year of MLS). The main sourcing issue is access to media from Mexico in the pre-Internet age over 30 years ago. If this was a lower-ranked league like the 1994-95 First Division with teams like 1994–95 Reading F.C. season and 1994–95 Sheffield United F.C. season, we wouldn't be having this discussion - there are 22 seasons articles for the First Division that season. 187.156.98.86 (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sources lack the quality or quantity to justify this page. How many of these pages are these? Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  As Fram (talk · contribs) wrote "Which is not an Afd reason, and needs perhaps some indication of where the text is copied from? Otherwise you are accusing an editor without any evidence, which isn´t a good look..." 2806:108E:24:B52A:1C07:1F23:7285:39BC (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I don't think there's much of an argument that the closes violated settled procedure; plainly they didn't. But I think we can agree now that they were bad outcomes, and that this nomination was very likely just as tainted and pointy as the other similar AfD cases The Banner filed, all of which have closed (or will soon do) as overwhelming Keeps. We have two choices here: to do the right thing and restore the articles -- not simply relist the AfDs -- or just wash our hands of The Banner's now-obvious bad faith and worse judgment (and for which he's about to be community tbanned from the AfD process generally). That the community needs to do a better job at AfD has been manifest for years now, and that's a problem beyond the scope of this DRV. Correcting this error is within our grasp, and it should be done without further delay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:108E:24:B52A:D1E:13B8:E16F:4B0E (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern: The unsigned keep !vote is suspicious-looking given that (1) one user has tried to cast multiple !votes, (2) the unsigned user has responded to this entire set of AfDs, and (3) the unsigned user has nothing else in their contribution history. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that the bastard is doing so with my words, which were cut-and-pasted from the DRV that relisted this AfD. Ravenswing 00:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As Inomyabcs (talk · contribs) wrote to Ravenswing: "I want to thank you for keeping an open mind and doing due diligence... with Hugo. I also went back and looked at the AfDs and I believe Hugo had a point. I added my review of the AfDs for the ones that are still open and was able to locate sources to satisfy the main complaint in three of them; [2] , [3], and [4]. I really do hope that your admonishment gets through to some of the editors there. To lose an editor (201-articles-Hugo) that was trying to operate in good faith and with a wealth of edits is a real shame." 2806:108E:24:B52A:1C07:1F23:7285:39BC (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And (4) I just saw the one who'd tried to cast multiple votes has been blocked. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1994–95 Tigres UANL season[edit]

1994–95 Tigres UANL season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Season-article without any sources for the season itself The Banner talk 09:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 09:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Mister user:JTtheOG Hello Sir, I'm created The article 1994-95 Tigres UANL season and you reviewed during autumn, now The Banner and his friends wants to delete the article even it is properly sourced. Can you post that the article is not unsourced?. Thank you. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Mister The Banner, regards the matches, positions by round subsection, results by round subsection the source came from RSSSF https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html it is the same used by 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season and it is detailed by the Spanish version of that article, then I structured the matches section based on that info. The source it is included now. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article was reviewed by user:JTtheOG and includes 7 references/sources/links: [14], [15], [16] [17], [18], [19]. The Competitions section links two tables to 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season the subsection results by round or position by round is properly sourced and linked to https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html same applies to subsection Matches. It is not copyviolation due to it does not exist a similar page on RSSSF, there is a Overall page including 259 teams and hundreds of matches. However my article contains only the matches for the club in question and I did not copy from that site and paste over here, I use the info even it is clear is not the same. Also, that information is available on the Wikipedia Spanish version of 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season and RSSSF states: "You are free to copy this document in whole or part provided that proper acknowledgement is given to the authors. All rights reserved." Acknowledgements properly included. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does. The structure of the article only follows the RSSSF.com reference https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html said that, The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the performance of Tigres UANL round by round, plus the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF reference mentioned above including goalscorers game by game. In an aggregate for this article in Statistics the reference Source: http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html it clearly showed the performance of players during the 94/95 season. In an aggregate I included the worsening of situation for universities during that season an interview from ESPN " Mexican Secretariat of Public Education in 1994 announces that Universities' budget must not be spent on professional football teams https://www.espn.com.mx/noticias/nota/_/id/2101545/padilla-admite-error-al-vender-leones-en-1994-hoy-vale-413-mdp the reference is also included in the articles for other universities football franchises of that year. The description is clear and include how the budget reduction affected the team in that year. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does. The structure of the article only follows the RSSSF.com reference https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html said that, The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the performance of Tigres UANL round by round, plus the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF reference mentioned above including goalscorers game by game. In an aggregate for this article in Statistics the reference Source: http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html it clearly showed the performance of players during the 94/95 season. In an aggregate I included the worsening of situation for universities during that season an interview from ESPN " Mexican Secretariat of Public Education in 1994 announces that Universities' budget must not be spent on professional football teams https://www.espn.com.mx/noticias/nota/_/id/2101545/padilla-admite-error-al-vender-leones-en-1994-hoy-vale-413-mdp the reference is also included in the articles for other universities football franchises of that year. The description is clear and include how the budget reduction affected the team in that year. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does.The structure of the article only follows the RSSSF.com reference https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html said that, The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the performance of Tigres UANL round by round, plus the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF reference mentioned above including goalscorers game by game. In an aggregate for this article in Statistics the reference Source: http://yalma.fime.uanl.mx/~futmx/MFL/Mex95/News/norte29my95b.html it clearly showed the performance of players during the 94/95 season. In an aggregate I included the worsening of situation for universities during that season an interview from ESPN " Mexican Secretariat of Public Education in 1994 announces that Universities' budget must not be spent on professional football teams https://www.espn.com.mx/noticias/nota/_/id/2101545/padilla-admite-error-al-vender-leones-en-1994-hoy-vale-413-mdp the reference is also included in the articles for other universities football franchises of that year. The description is clear and include how the budget reduction affected the team in that year. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to repeat yourself three times when protecting your own article. The Banner talk 17:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reference number 1 contains a link to an article where as clearly states about the 1994-95 season even the testimony of the second on board of University' Dean.References 3,4,5 clearly contains the two players being part of the team over the 1994-95 season, also the manager. RSSSF Reference number 6 is used to structure the article, including two tables linked to 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season and the Matches round by round, also the link is useful to create the crutial postion by round table. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - these kind of articles are notable, and this one possibly is, but I cannot see any significant coverage. If sources are found ping me. GiantSnowman 18:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've showed and explained the sources one by one, the references are journals, TV stations, the structure of the article, the links and now they created a new term: "coverage", maybe tomorrow they will create another one to delete the article. My article was reviewed and approved now is censored with new terms. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted AfD per DRV
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yet again, sources lack the quality or quantity to justify this page. The sheer number of these pages demonstrates that this is too specific and obscure. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm watching Nederland crushing the "U.S. masculine team soccer" 3-1 with my friends Nfitz (talk · contribs) and comments arouse about why U.S. and Nederland did not want to play in Russia 2018, They were really scared about Putin. Articles that pass NSEASONS (which is a guideline) should provide reliable sources to meet GNG; but unlike athletes, it's not like they must. As it does pass an SNG it doesn't need to meet GNG explicitly - at least not immediately. But I don't know why anyone would think that seasons articles for teams in the best league in North America in a football-mad country wouldn't meet GNG. Looks like that many rank this league 9th in the world currently, compared to 15th for MLS. There's no doubt that the calibre of teams in this league is higher than MLS. And yet we seasons articles for all but two of the 1996 MLS teams (the first year of MLS). The main sourcing issue is access to media from Mexico in the pre-Internet age over 30 years ago. If this was a lower-ranked league like the 1994-95 First Division with teams like 1994–95 Reading F.C. season and 1994–95 Sheffield United F.C. season, we wouldn't be having this discussion - there are 22 seasons articles for the First Division that season. 187.156.98.86 (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I don't think there's much of an argument that the closes violated settled procedure; plainly they didn't. But I think we can agree now that they were bad outcomes, and that this nomination was very likely just as tainted and pointy as the other similar AfD cases The Banner filed, all of which have closed (or will soon do) as overwhelming Keeps. We have two choices here: to do the right thing and restore the articles -- not simply relist the AfDs -- or just wash our hands of The Banner's now-obvious bad faith and worse judgment (and for which he's about to be community tbanned from the AfD process generally). That the community needs to do a better job at AfD has been manifest for years now, and that's a problem beyond the scope of this DRV. Correcting this error is within our grasp, and it should be done without further delay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:108E:24:B52A:D1E:13B8:E16F:4B0E (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern: The unsigned keep !vote is suspicious-looking given that (1) one user has tried to cast multiple !votes, (2) the unsigned user has responded to this entire set of AfDs, and (3) the unsigned user has nothing else in their contribution history. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that the bastard is doing so with my words, which were cut-and-pasted from the DRV that relisted this AfD. Ravenswing 00:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As Inomyabcs (talk · contribs) wrote to Ravenswing: "I want to thank you for keeping an open mind and doing due diligence... with Hugo. I also went back and looked at the AfDs and I believe Hugo had a point. I added my review of the AfDs for the ones that are still open and was able to locate sources to satisfy the main complaint in three of them; [2] , [3], and [4]. I really do hope that your admonishment gets through to some of the editors there. To lose an editor (201-articles-Hugo) that was trying to operate in good faith and with a wealth of edits is a real shame." 2806:108E:24:B52A:1C07:1F23:7285:39BC (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And (4) I just saw the one who'd tried to cast multiple votes has been blocked indefinitely for abusively using multiple accounts. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Legoktm (talk) 04:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Brammen[edit]

Jonas Brammen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Created for 45 minutes of pro-level play in 2016. Best I could find is this (paywalled) interview, rest are match reports in the local press. Fails GNG. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 09:34, 21 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) 09:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Question @Doctor Duh: And you don't think the German wiki article de:Jonas Brammen passes GNG either? Govvy (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Govvy - heh, that's certainly something I'll remember to check next time, looks like he received more attention in the very early stages of his career. But I think the argument for deletion still doesn't fall apart from this; I see only the first two cites on the de.wiki article (1, 2) as plausibly contributing to a claim to notability, but the first one is just a short interview and they're both filed under "Lokalsport", which I don't think I need to translate. We'll see how this plays out with additional community input, but I promise to be more inquisitive in the future... Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per Govvy. I found [20], [21], [22], [23], among many many more German sources from nw.de, rp-online.de, westfalen-blatt.de, owl-journal.de, sport1.de, radioguetersloh.de, wn.de, welt.de. kicker.de etc. Player with ongoing career and experience in the fully professional German second and third tiers. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above references provided, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 19:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. All I could find were interviews, match reports and brief mentions that don't go to passing GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 16:09, 24 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!} 17:13, 28 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. – Joe (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1994–95 Club Puebla season[edit]

1994–95 Club Puebla season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Season-article without any sources for the season itself The Banner talk 09:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 09:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does. The references for the article are linked to the season, 1.2. Tita in fact played for Puebla for only one season, in the link they talked about him playing for Puebla. 3. The reference showed how Pablo Larios left Puebla in 1994 and was transferred out to Toros Neza. 5.The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the path of Puebla, the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF.com the same reference and the season 94/95. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does.The references for the article are linked to the season, 1.2. Tita in fact played for Puebla for only one season, in the link they talked about him playing for Puebla. 3. The reference showed how Pablo Larios left Puebla in 1994 and was transferred out to Toros Neza. 5.The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the path of Puebla, the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF.com the same reference and the season 94/95. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - nomination is flawed, articles can and do meet GNG - as this one does.The references for the article are linked to the season, 1.2. Tita in fact played for Puebla for only one season, in the link they talked about him playing for Puebla. 3. The reference showed how Pablo Larios left Puebla in 1994 and was transferred out to Toros Neza. 5.The Summary description of the campaign is based from the RSSSF.com link of 1994/95 Mexico Regular season, it clearly shows the path of Puebla, the table for subsection called regular season, the subsection called table Overall season, and the Matches subsection of the article is from the RSSSF.com the same reference and the season 94/95. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - these kind of articles are notable, and this one possibly is, but I cannot see any significant coverage. If sources are found ping me. GiantSnowman 18:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've showed and explained the sources one by one, the references are journals, TV stations, the structure of the article, the links and now they created a new term: "coverage", maybe tomorrow they will create another one to delete the article. My article was reviewed and approved now is censored with new terms. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Mister user:Onel5969 Hello Sir, I'm created The article 1994-95 Club Puebla season and you reviewed during autumn, now The Banner and his friends wants to delete the article even it is properly sourced. Can you post that the article is not unsourced?. Thank you. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'll let others decide the notability of this particular article, but articles like these are routinely kept. I'm not sure what the nom is saying about "without any sources for the season itself". This is the source for the long results table, another link, this, is now not working, but was the source for the two smaller tables above the large one. The article does need more sourcing, and I should have tagged it so. The squad, transfers, and several points in the summary all need refs. I would suggest draftifying would be in order to allow HugoAcosta9 to fix the issues. I would suggest draftifying all 3 of these articles.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time of nomination, at least all the matches were unsourced. Effectively copyvio, as RSSSF is copyright protected. Adding those sources later, is whitewashing copyvio. The Banner talk 08:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -The squad and transfers subsection was from http://puebla80s.blogspot.com/2014/12/equipo-puebla-1994-95.html it is a fan blog of course I've checked the info reviewing all the wikipedia pages of the players and it is accurate but I did not include as a reference due to wikipedia rules. Therefore if wikipedia players pages, in English and Spanish showed the info I can use it. Thanks Mister Onel5969 for the reviews. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -The article was reviewed by user:Onel5969 and includes 7 references/sources/links: [24],[25], [26], [27], RSSSF. The Competitions section links two tables to 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season the subsection results by round or position by round is properly sourced and linked to https://www.rsssf.org/tablesm/mex95.html same applies to subsection Matches. It is not copyviolation due to it does not exist a similar page on RSSSF, there is a Overall page including 259 teams and hundreds of matches. However my article contains only the matches for the club in question and I did not copy from that site and paste over here, I use the info even it is clear is not the same. Also, that information is available on the Wikipedia Spanish version of 1994-95 Mexican Primera Division season and RSSSF states: "You are free to copy this document in whole or part provided that proper acknowledgement is given to the authors. All rights reserved." Acknowledgements properly included.. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @HugoAcosta9: Can you stop ruining the look of the page? This is another suggestion that you lack experience to contribute to Wikipedia! Sakiv (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HugoAcosta9, you can't vote multiple times on any AFD discussion. You can comment but you can only write "Keep" or "Delete" one time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted AfD per DRV
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of significant coverage. Yes, there is some coverage but not of the quality or quantity to justify this overly specified page. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm watching Nederland crushing the "U.S. masculine team soccer" 3-1 with my friends Nfitz (talk · contribs) and comments arouse about why U.S. and Nederland did not want to play in Russia 2018, They were really scared about Putin. Articles that pass NSEASONS (which is a guideline) should provide reliable sources to meet GNG; but unlike athletes, it's not like they must. As it does pass an SNG it doesn't need to meet GNG explicitly - at least not immediately. But I don't know why anyone would think that seasons articles for teams in the best league in North America in a football-mad country wouldn't meet GNG. Looks like that many rank this league 9th in the world currently, compared to 15th for MLS. There's no doubt that the calibre of teams in this league is higher than MLS. And yet we seasons articles for all but two of the 1996 MLS teams (the first year of MLS). The main sourcing issue is access to media from Mexico in the pre-Internet age over 30 years ago. If this was a lower-ranked league like the 1994-95 First Division with teams like 1994–95 Reading F.C. season and 1994–95 Sheffield United F.C. season, we wouldn't be having this discussion - there are 22 seasons articles for the First Division that season. 187.156.98.86 (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I don't think there's much of an argument that the closes violated settled procedure; plainly they didn't. But I think we can agree now that they were bad outcomes, and that this nomination was very likely just as tainted and pointy as the other similar AfD cases The Banner filed, all of which have closed (or will soon do) as overwhelming Keeps. We have two choices here: to do the right thing and restore the articles -- not simply relist the AfDs -- or just wash our hands of The Banner's now-obvious bad faith and worse judgment (and for which he's about to be community tbanned from the AfD process generally). That the community needs to do a better job at AfD has been manifest for years now, and that's a problem beyond the scope of this DRV. Correcting this error is within our grasp, and it should be done without further delay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:108E:24:B52A:D1E:13B8:E16F:4B0E (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern: The unsigned keep !vote is suspicious-looking given that (1) one user has tried to cast multiple !votes, (2) the unsigned user has responded to this entire set of AfDs, and (3) the unsigned user has nothing else in their contribution history. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that the bastard is doing so with my words, which were cut-and-pasted from the DRV that relisted this AfD. Ravenswing 00:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As Inomyabcs (talk · contribs) wrote to Ravenswing: "I want to thank you for keeping an open mind and doing due diligence... with Hugo. I also went back and looked at the AfDs and I believe Hugo had a point. I added my review of the AfDs for the ones that are still open and was able to locate sources to satisfy the main complaint in three of them; [2] , [3], and [4]. I really do hope that your admonishment gets through to some of the editors there. To lose an editor (201-articles-Hugo) that was trying to operate in good faith and with a wealth of edits is a real shame." 2806:108E:24:B52A:1C07:1F23:7285:39BC (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And (4) I just saw the one who'd tried to cast multiple votes has been blocked. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional games of the United States[edit]

Traditional games of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:OR mixed list of commercial games, worldwide games, sports, ... which happen to also be played in the US (just like 100s of other games). No idea why some games from the sources were included and some excluded, just reinforces the randomness of the list. Fram (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and United States of America. Fram (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some information on the traditional games of the United States is better than none, and the article can always be expanded upon by interested editors. GreekApple123 (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Random info with a very unclear selection process is not better than no information at all, no. The inclusion or exclusion criteria for this list seems to be completely arbitrary (if Twister, then why not Monopoly, ...? if lacrosse, then why no baseball?) and would result in a quasi endless list of everything played in the US "traditionally" (when does traditionally start? Invented/played before X?) Just throwing together some information and claiming it is about "the traditional games of the United States" is not how articles should be made. Fram (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I normally like navigational list articles, but I'm not sure this one is recoverable. If there were some good sources that discussed this specific topic, I'd lean toward keep pretty quickly. But as it is, I'm not sure how we'd pick what goes here and what doesn't. That's usually a bad sign for a list article. Hobit (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Traditional board games perhaps, this is just anything and everything moooshed together. There is no discussion beyond simply listing them and one line about each game. Oaktree b (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, this is a random list with an especially unclear selection criteria failing WP:LISTN. VickKiang (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Hobit's views mirror my own. It would be nice for something to be here, but with unclear inclusion criteria, it's not clear how to save this. Jclemens (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is a list which does not meet the WP:LSC guideline. Bruxton (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzad Dana[edit]

Shahzad Dana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Refs are blogs, PR and WP:SPS sources. Not independently notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 15:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked for refs Shahzad Dana and his company and I'm coming up empty on both for WP:RS. Delete as non notable. Knitsey (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not close to being notable. --Mvqr (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sign of notability. Every single source is a content scraper, a blog, or otherwise unreliable. --bonadea contributions talk 19:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity spam, I don't see anything about this fellow, and the picture is an odd floating head. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Engineering. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunate what he's going through, but as of yet, doesn't meet notability Nswix (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Naumov (logician)[edit]

Pavel Naumov (logician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Logician fails WP:NBIO with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, unlike the athlete with the same name. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Logic, and Russia. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think any of his current lecturer position at Soton [28], his citation record [29], or his previous dismissal for allegedly stalking another faculty member and subsequent legal case rise to the level of WP:PROF or WP:PERP notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails PROF, weak citation record and has not held any prestigious posts. Local coverage surrounding dismissal does not rise to GNG. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Basically per David Eppstein. A relatively low publication impact combined with no higher academic position than associate professor falls well below what PROF requires, and there are prohibitive BLP concerns with anything else. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a notable academic. Cullen328 (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cannot find any indication of sufficient notability --Tristario (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails WP:PROF. Not notable in any way. Stoarm (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The athlete with the same name has also been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavel Naumov. So, I have stricken out part of my deletion reasoning. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing notable here. Not even WP:WI1E. --Suitskvarts (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post.news[edit]

Post.news (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

startup. fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 14:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No real reason to believe that this start up will be notable. Needs sustained coverage by reliable sources. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As the CEO of Waze for 12 years, from soon after its founding through its acquisition by Google, Post.news founder Noam Bardin has a great deal of credibility as a startup executive.

Although Mastodon is getting more buzz as a replacement for Twitter, a lot of journalists are switching to Post instead, on grounds that the decentralized nature of Mastodon makes it complicated, and likely to remain more a hobbyist site.

Additionally, I think a wait-and-see approach to its success is more appropriate than a deletion.

— Steve98052 (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's currently redlinked. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Too soon, next to no coverage in reliable sources. This outfit was founded two weeks ago, wikipedia isn't here to list every new startup. We aren't here to park your article to wait and see, you're notable, or you're not. This isn't linked in. Oaktree b (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Websites, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice against possible recreation if the relevant standard is eventually met. We're not a directory of products still in beta. XOR'easter (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:TOOSOON. It does not seem to pass WP:NCORP yet. MarioGom (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete TOOSOON, and the whole point of this is promotional. Suggest SNOW deleting this, as it is borderline A7 and not inappropriate enough in tone for G11, IMHO. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice against re-creation if coverage of the subject eventually satisfies WP:GNG and/or WP:NCORP. It presently fails those standards. Sal2100 (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable enough at this time. Accesscrawl (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Talk about anticipating the "next big thing". Still in a closed beta, still waiting lists for signup, still waiting for in-depth significant sourcing. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:TOOSOON. Being created by someone who founded a notable company does not automatically make everything done by that person notable. It may become notable, it may not. But right now, notability has not been established for this article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 14:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Centipede (film)[edit]

Centipede (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable film, appears to fail requirements in WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability since August 2021

The result of the first discussion was "no consensus", and the notability tag remains. I am not a fan of that tag, I think that either the article should be improved to the extent that the tag can be removed, or the article should be deleted if notability cannot be proven.

Can we come to a consensus this time? Notable (keep article) or non-notable (delete article). I vote Delete DonaldD23 talk to me 14:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Iran. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sixth highest grossing film in Iran would seem to be all we need. There are next to no sources in Iran that we can access. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Or no English ones, they all look the same in Gtranlate to me, so I can't tell what a RS is. Oaktree b (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There are many reviews listed here but I'm not familiar with the reliability of Iranian sources. Here is a translation of one of them here which seems to be a full review, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep appears to be ample sourcing Garuda3 (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NFILM Bruxton (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 13:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eye of Harmony[edit]

Eye of Harmony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Niche element of Doctor Who franchise. Our article is pure plot summary with a tiny unreferenced attempt at analysis ("Scientific context"). Practically unreferenced - one footnote is a note, the other links to a BBC plot summary, and there is an EL to a fan wiki. My BEFORE revealed just a few passing mentions in some plot summaries. WP:GNG fail. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cannot be redirected to a specific episode of the series, due to its many appearances. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG. There aren't third-party sources with significant coverage for this element. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Although 2-3 times the Eye of Harmony has been an important plot in Doctor Who stories, it is not something that has ever attracted much coverage or recognition beyond the series. Indeed even within the series what it was and what it did was not that consistent and most of the development of it has come in expanded media or fan works. As such I don't think it merits its own Wikipedia article. If a redirect was being looked for Rassilon might be an option since in its first television appearance -The Deadly Assassin - it is closely associated with him and is mentioned in his article. Alternately, the Time Lord article's section on technology mentions it so that might be a good option as well. Dunarc (talk) 23:54, 29 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iran v United States (2022 FIFA World Cup)[edit]

Iran v United States (2022 FIFA World Cup) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Crazy WP:CRYSTALBALL that this match will be notable. Everything else is WP:ROUTINE. We don't highlight every football matches, only those with a legacy, such as finals of major competitions, or freak scorelines. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Iran, and United States of America. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective merge to 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B#Iran vs United States. This reads like a news/opinion piece and most of it is about the 1998 game, but some info like the bruhaha about the flag on Twitter and the match security can be mentioned in the section on the group article (which now just consists of two short sentences), along with a match report when the game actually happens. Not seeing much evidence of the in-depth coverage required to justify a standalone article at the moment. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge Does not warrant an own article. If something happens, that deserves an article, it will be done but not now. Kante4 (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Do we really need a redirect for every World Cup match? Just delete it. Nfitz (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete routine group stage match with no major storylines (like there may have been in the 1998 match). I oppose a merge/redirect because "Iran v United States (2022 FIFA World Cup)" is an unlikely search term. People looking for the match would be more likely to go to the World Cup page (or Group B page) to find the match report there. Frank Anchor 17:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Everything about this doesn't deal with the not-yet-played match or its players and should be a sub-paragraph in section 12 of Iran–United States relations. Maybe...wait for the actual game to play out before creating an article? Nate • (chatter) 17:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold This is a valid draft towards a match to be played in under 24 hours, has no one consider a merge with United States v Iran (1998 FIFA World Cup) ? Also, this is down to the outcome of the result, and what political, social echoes come from the match. Those delete votes really need to look at the bigger picture and not just the game. A different rivalry article could be constructed with the two matches now. Govvy (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm asking for a deletion of everything not to do with the actual 22 men on the field playing the game; if something really does happen tomorrow that's on par with the 1972 Olympic Men's Basketball Final, then yes, article justified and some of this belongs there for sure. But the thing the title described actually has to happen first. Nate • (chatter) 00:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before creating this article, I thought of continuing the 1998 article. But it can be only if the 1998 page is moved. Maxaxa (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But, like why create an article about a match that isn't yet notable? If it ends up a 9-0 win today, it'd likely warrant its own article. If not, it simply isn't notable enough. I'm not entirely convinced the 98 match is independently notable from the tournament either. There might be scope for a mention more in the US-Iran relations article as these articles have very little to do with football and what actually happens. We should be trying to expand our existing articles, such as the Group B article with a match summary before splitting into individual articles (especially over something that is yet to happen). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait until the match happens. Unless the match itself is extraordinary, then delete this. Two countries having political feelings towards each other doesn't make the match between them notable. United States v Iran (1998 FIFA World Cup) was a big upset, whereas even if Iran win this match today, it wouldn't be much of an upset (both team are close in the FIFA World Rankings.) Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It should be allowed due to the fact that this game is significant for 24 years. 2603:8080:A00:6A34:801C:A954:5B41:1F4A (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, the year isn't 2046, so that seems unlikely. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Group matches in FIFA are run of the mill and not notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable before the match started and non-notable after the match ended. — Chevvin 21:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing to suggest the match deserves a separate article. Important information can be instead transferred to 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B#Iran 0–1 United States. Rennespzn (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B#Iran 0–1 United States Now that the match has been played it was unexceptional; whatever else went on should go to Iran–United States relations. Nate • (chatter) 22:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to redirect an “unexceptional” match to the Group Stage article unless that is done for all matches played (which would be a ridiculous waste of time). A straight delete is the better option. Frank Anchor 01:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – the match was unexceptional, and any controversy leading up to the match can be covered in 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B or Iran–United States relations. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The match itself lacks the notability to be an article. As others have pointed out, the controversy surrounding it can be covered in other sections, not an article. Ardije (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Specific group matches generally aren't notable, even though the World Cup may be. The match itself isn't especially noteworthy, being a 0–1 win for the U.S., and is sufficiently covered in 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B#Iran 0–1 United States. As Vilenski says above, the match might've been notable if it were a 0–9 win, but nothing of the sort happened.
  Most of the information in this article is only tangentially related to the match, which depending on one's viewpoint violates WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE, and/or WP:NOTNEWS. The reason I'm !voting "delete" rather than "redirect" is that, if you take out the irrelevant information in question, there is literally nothing worth merging. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if not Merge to United States v Iran (1998 FIFA World Cup). Not notable for a standalone article. Rylesbourne (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Now the game has been played, which now has a result, I would say the only routine thing is the football, the other political backdrop behind the game does seem to be covered in other articles. I see no need to merge content over. Govvy (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You mean because the US won the article must be deleted and the 1998 article must be kept because Iran won? Maxaxa (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the Legacy section (along with a lot more of the article) is incredibly POV. It looks very likely to be deleted from the above, but I am worried about the amount of views for a current event written like this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I tried to clean up the article a bit, but this is very much smells of WP:RECENTISM to me. While there definitely were odd things surrounding this match that wouldn't have occurred had the two teams not been from countries with such a fraught relationship, there is not a whole lot suggesting this has long term notability. A more comprehensive rewrite is needed if kept. TartarTorte 14:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no need for a redirect as an unlikely search term. Non-notable match. Any information regarding the lead-up or aftermath of the match is already present at 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B, and any additional prose can be added there. Jay eyem (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Fair play: Why all parts of the article indicating the notability of the match in world media are deleted? They were not sourced? The sources are not reliable?--Maxaxa (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's all WP:ROUTINE coverage. Articles are supposed to be independently notable from parent articles. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. I am the vandal who created the article. Given the media attention the match attracted, works devoted to the match are forthcoming and they will make a separate article inevitable. Hurry up, time is running out. Love you, the world cup was more fun with you.--Maxaxa (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B per reasons by others. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxaxax Why are you calling yourself a vandal? Also, the article doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 2022 FIFA World Cup Group B as possible search term. GiantSnowman 19:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't create an article for every match in the World Cup -- or in any other competition for that matter -- and there is nothing extraordinarily unique about this match that warrants an article either. The fact that some people chose to see (or seed) political overtones isn't a notable for an article. Mercy11 (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Renaissance (Beyoncé album). Randykitty (talk) 11:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heated (Beyoncé song)[edit]

Heated (Beyoncé song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not a notable release, fails WP:NSONG . The only noteworthy thing here is the Controversy part, but all of that is already part of the album article. Sricsi (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Sricsi (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Renaissance (Beyoncé album). Not enough independent coverage about the song besides the controversy. So it fails WP:NSONG. SBKSPP (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]