< October 19	October 21 >

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Grode[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Little indication of notability. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Law, and Business. PepperBeast (talk) 23:00, 13 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!} 23:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no articles about this fellow found, he's talking in one about Michael Jackson's songs still earning money after his death. We're a long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 04:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 0 references. 1 of 5 external links is a short mention, all others are unavailable or do not even contain his name. --Suitskvarts (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Clockwork Flowers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No real indication of notability. Lack of independent sources. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan. PepperBeast (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spotify and other streaming sites, no news articles about them. Many about flowers and plants. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero independent third-party coverage. "Clockwork Flowers band" on Google turned up absolutely zilch. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zebulon Crocker[edit]

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

Appears to lack significant coverage. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Christianity. PepperBeast (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ A whole three hits in Jstor, one from the period he was active. They are just confirmation he existed, nothing substantial. I don't find much of anything for this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is mentioned here as a notable figure in the religious and political affairs of his day. There's also a 2 page biography here. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the book sources identified above and the books and journals referenced in the article. Worldcat shows 447 library holdings for his book here which of itself is not a notability criteria but it is a significant holding for a work from 1838, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per arguments raised by @Ficaia and @Atlantic306

Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:13, 17 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!} 23:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with the new sources found, seems to be just past GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Bertolotti[edit]

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

I've added one reference, but I really can't find quite enough independant and reliable sources to maintain notability claim. Some Italian speakers may be helpful. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion, article should not have been nominated for deletion. If you review her Italian Wikipedia page you will see her significant career as a voice actor that is one of notability criteria. ZanciD (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)(sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 20 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!} 22:01, 13 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!} 23:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of sources, socks aren't even really coming out to give their opinion, she isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is required to demonstrate notability. Additionally, the article is not suitable to be on Wikipedia. Moresdi (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've checked some of the online Italian sources, and have translated what appears to be the most substantial write-up (link here). The article's title translates to Who is the Italian voice-actress who dubs Anne Hathaway, in the film Valentine's Day (2010). ("Valentine's Day" is translated to "Appointment with Love".) Please note that, although I am an Italian speaker, I am not a qualified translator, and this translation is mine only, and may contain errors. I've translated the opening line of the article, and then skipped ahead to the second paragraph, because the first paragraph is solely about Anne Hathaway.

In "Valentine's Day" (2010), Anne Hathaway has the voice of an Italian voice-actress who is used to playing roles similar to this character... In the Italian version [of the film], Hathaway takes the voice of Monica Bertolotti, a voice-actress who has worked in numerous Italian adaptations of foreign films, among which are "American Pie" and its sequels, "The Last King of Scotland", "The Legend of 1900", "The Terminal", "Space Jam", "Lion King 2" and "The Powerpuff Girls". For this part, the impression of the voice-actor is particularly important given that the main character uses her voice to elicit pleasure. It's not the first time Bertolotti has worked on a film and in a role where sexuality is central, the voice-actress has in fact worked in the Italian version of "Sex and Lucia" (2001).

Aside from this article, the subject is mentioned in other articles, as well as simply being listed in credits listings in numerous other articles and Google Books, and from the Italian Wikipedia page, it certainly appears that she has worked prolifically as a voice-over artist. However, another question to be considered (although perhaps less relevant) is—is there any utility in having an English Wikipedia page if there is already an Italian one? Certainly for famous Italians (indeed, famous people in any country where English isn't the main language) there is no question that having a second Wikipedia page, in English, is justified—but is this such a case? Dflaw4 (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage found after a search. TV Tropes is the article's only citation and is not a viable source. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 15:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Underwater (band)[edit]

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

Minimal significant coverage of the band. Google searches mostly seem to confuse Underwater (the band) for AquaSonic, arguably the first band that has played underwater. Most sources seem to be interviews, which on their own don't seem to establish notability; only notable RS mentioned seems to be the Orlando Weekly. InvadingInvader (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. InvadingInvader (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 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!} 21:59, 13 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!} 23:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Improvements on the article have started and we have two editors interested in working with this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OMIKE[edit]

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

Organization fails WP:ORG, as tagged since January 2010. No significant coverage found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Hungary. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:00, 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!} 21:56, 13 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!} 23:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is an English-translated book on this topic: "The Writers, Artists, Singers, and Musicians of the National Hungarian Jewish Cultural Association (OMIKE), 1939–1944" (and a brief summary/review here). AllyD (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added several book references (including the above book, which is accessible through the Wikipedia Library) and some copy-editing which I hope makes the article clearer. I think there is enough to demonstrate notability, however it also occurs to me that the activities of OMIKE, both during the inter-war period and as an artistic project in the 1938-44 period could perhaps enhance the History of the Jews in Hungary article by showing self-organisation, so wouldn't be averse to a merge/redirect if that was others' preferences. AllyD (talk) 11:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Visited cat:nn for the first time in about 3 weeks and was looking at the article. Work to update it per WP:HEYMANN is decent, and are probably more references out there should somebody want to expand it. Passes WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 23:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A redirect was mentioned but no target offerred. No problem creating one now from this page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Petter Karlsson[edit]

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

Person fails WP:NBIO, as tagged since January 2010. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sweden. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 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!} 21:54, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Per sourcing. Per work resulting in DVD and other work. Within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources in the article are reliable, so they are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:55, 18 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!} 23:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find anything to support notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. Not really notable in the traditional, needing references and what not. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 23:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn C. Phillips[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted a (as far as my experience) record five times, each time on notability grounds, this article presents insufficient evidence of notability for this actor (with roles such as 'Barista' and 'Drug Dealer') and fails WP:GNG. This time around I'd respectfully advance an argument for delete and SALT. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, still nothing notable. The Times of India is a clickbait site, rest are passing mentions of him or his films. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hello Alexandermcnabb First I want to thank you for your review because I truly appreciate it. I don't understand why Shawn C. Phillips page is being considered for deletion; other than the notes you made on this page "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn C. Phillips (3rd nomination)"? He has been in 55+ movies as co-star and lead character. Please make a note to yourself that I didn't even add all of them. There are way more movies than what I listed in this article and just about every film comes up on Google with notable articles/sources about them. Based on what I found on the web for him, he does meet general notability guideline / WP:GNG. Thanks! Vikiemoney (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of roles and credits to qualify under Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers. I added the IMDb template to the article. 5Q5|^✉ 13:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless a suitable redirect target can be found as an ATD. He's a working actor, without any truly significant roles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, has been deleted already several times. Might be worth reviewing previous AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, because not one but two previous nominations voted to delete, yet for whatever reason this article is still hanging around. Lengthy filmography, but it's mostly minor roles in non-notable B-movie schlock. Article cites primary sources with no independent third-party coverage of subject aside from puff pieces on niche movie sites. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of significant coverage and multiple significant roles. Moresdi (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Philogyny. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philandry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The term 'philandry' does not appear in any dictionary save Wiktionary, where no verification or provenance is supplied. The dictionary refs given in the article are bogus. Deletion is requested because the subject lacks reliable supporting sources. The article was recreated with mini-rewritting in 2015, now need to be to deletion, why waste time the community... 『白猫しろねこ』^Обг. 22:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Philogyny, the only other article that mentions the topic. I browsed through the tidy pile of Google Scholar results for ["philandry"] and they're all passing uses of the term. Besides a definition (which varies from source to source), we'd get nothing usable. Google News turns up nothing, and neither does The Wikipedia Library. I'd gladly change my vote if someone finds some significant coverage, but I'm skeptical that it's out there. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Drowning Pool. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Benton[edit]

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

Non notable musician. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Drowning Pool. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I am not opposed to a redirect. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what is the point of this discussion? It was already correctly redirected to Drowning Pool, per WP:BANDMEMBER --FMSky (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Father Ray's Sponsor a Child Foundation[edit]

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

Declined prod. I could find no significant coverage. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

del nonnotable charity. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable charity with no viable coverage, and the article is duly unsourced. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 West Springfield, Massachusetts#Education. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mittineague Elementary[edit]

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

Not notable on its own; it's not the site of a major mass shooting nor has any individual elements. Zero secondary sources, only one primary source listed. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Massachusetts. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete lacks coverage. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for no non-local or architectural coverage. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to the education section of West Springfield, Massachusetts per WP:ATD and the recent results of a deletion discussion about the same community's middle school. If there are any other lower schools in this community that have articles, they can likely be handled in the same manner BOLDLY. 174.212.227.190 (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Lack of secondary sources. Lorstaking (talk) 12:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Esporte Clube São Martinho[edit]

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

Amateur football team from a small city, fails WP:GNG. Refs in the Portuguese article only briefly mention the team, and online research showed only a few mentions in Tatuí newsites Horcoff (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Brazil. Skynxnex (talk) 20:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I could find in my search were this blog post about the club's history and this article saying there is a documentary about the club (and the documentary doesn't seem to be independent enough to support notability). OliveYouBean (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G5 (User:JWJustinianotheGreat) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldic Authority of Southern California[edit]

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

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:NCORP 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This likely has COI/self-promo issues, and could even be a hoax. All the same, it fails every flavour of notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no sign of notability. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gigachad5000. --bonadea contributions talk 19:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable promo KylieTastic (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A7 at the very least, and possibly WP:A11, as this looks like something the author made up in school one day. --Finngall ^talk 20:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tessy María López Goerne[edit]

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

Not seeing a pass on WP:PROF ~~her scholar profile only shows 85 total citations , though maybe that record is incomplete.~~[1] (See below) Has been some coverage of her legal issues surrounding nanogel in the Mexican press (e.g. [2]) but I'm not seeing enough in-depth coverage for a WP:GNG pass. This article is being bombarded by IP users currently removing unflattering passages, here's an archived version from August from before they started to whitewash it. Many of the references currently in the article are not reliable, like links to her book or her profile on her university website. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Mexico. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am sufficiently convinced by other voters that her second google scholar profile indicates that she in fact passes PROF. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently she has two separate google scholar profiles for whatever reason? Anyway, her other google scholar profile [3] has over 10,000 citations, and a h-index of 56. Make of that what you will. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some additional coverage to assess a 2016 interview in Hipertextual (no idea about the reliability of that publication) A 2019 profile/interview in Máspormás. (No idea about this one either). Coverage of her nanogel in Paraguayan newspaper Ultima Hora. There's some weird claim that she was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, which I can't get my head around. The Máspormás profile says that this nomination was made by "The Council for Parity Democracy", supposedly a British organisation, which if it exists at all is very obscure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this 2020 article in infobae (which is a legit newspaper, see infobae) explains the whole nobel prize claim: This is not the first time that Tessy López Goerne's professional ethics has been called into question, since she was accused in the past of taking advantage of an error by several Mexican media outlets that got confused and considered her a candidate for the Nobel Prize for Chemistry 2016. López Goerne was recognized by the Council for Parity Democracy in the United Kingdom in 2016, as one of the 270 women active in the field of the Nobel Prize and designated as one of the four scientists who could at some point be considered for obtaining the award. However, the recognition of the Council for Parity Democracy is not a nomination, nor does it have anything to do with the Nobel Prize, but in Mexico communicators with little technical knowledge of the subject got confused and dragged others with more experience along with them.. There seems to be a serious issue here between the uncritical profiles she has recieved in some publications, and the critical coverage her company has received in others. Not sure what to do about that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF, WP:GNG and nobel prize claim sees to be false Wesoree (Talk) 19:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She seems to be notable enough for an academic, but I am certainly not an expert in these type of deletion nominations. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not remotely enough impact yet to pass WP:Prof in her field: far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

The other GS profile with high cites, refers to a person with a differently spelt name who does not seem to appear in the authors lists. The situation lacks clarity: when in doubt delete. If supporting evidence emerges the BLP can be recreated. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

She does appear in the author lists, credited as "T. López". XOR'easter (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That needs confirmation. Also, the name is different. This BLP seems to have too many fishy features for a keep at present. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. I don't see her meeting WP:NPROF criteria as an academic, but her notoriety might eventually let her meet WP:GNG if she gets more coverage of shady practices. The company may be notoriously notable for a similar reason. However at this point I agree with Xxanthippe that it's WP:TOOSOON. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. I'm not understanding the two profiles; is "Tessy María López Goerner" at the same university really a different academic in a similar area? Espresso Addict (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The faculty catalogue only lists one "Tessy". And this Scopus profile includes papers with "Lopez-Goerne, T.M." and also "López, T." in the byline. And this profile at Tulane for "Tessy Lopez Goerne" (who apparently holds an adjunct/visiting position there) lists publications coauthored by "T. López". I'm not entirely sure what's going on with the two GS profiles, but it looks like we have one person who has published under two names (maybe a paternal surname and then both paternal and maternal surnames). XOR'easter (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the same subject, then Keep, per meeting WP:PROF on citations. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep under WP:NPROF/1. Her university lists her under Lopez Groene, Tessy Maria, and lists some of her papers. Those match up with Scopus that gives her a h-index of 47. I'm not sure what's going on with Google Scholar, it's possible there's more confusion with it's listing than just the name issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the different naming system? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit more than that, I don't believe all the papers in the uncertified Google Scholar entry are from the subject of this article. The article subject is T. López / Tessy Maria Lopez Groene, I believe the Groener scholar entry is Frankenstein creation of Google's processes. Google creates those listings using an automated process, so some funkiness is inevitable. But that's more an issue for Google than Wikipedia. We should look to the Scopus entry when considering the article subjects work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The situation may be more complicated than that. In order for a GS profile to become public, the creator of the profile has to activate the "Make profile public" link, which must have been done for both profiles here. The situation is still not clear. I agree that Scopus is likely more reliable, although that also has user-input features. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep. I am in the process of analyzing her coauthor citation profiles to see how she compares to others in her field. So far she is well above the average almost across the board, and far above the median in every parameter. I might update my !vote once I get more coauthors processed, but for now it's looking like a C1 keep. JoelleJay (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, looking at her 159 coauthors with 20+ papers on Scopus:
Top citation: average: 3709, median: 1532, Lopez-Goerne: 8277

Total papers: 117, 74, 256

h-index: 26, 21, 47

Top 5 papers: 1st: 392, 194, 250; 2nd: 192, 119, 240; 3rd: 145, 101, 222; 4th: 114, 86, 205; 5th: 101, 71, 205

141 coauthors with 30+ papers:
TC: 4117, 2055; TP: 129, 82; h: 28, 23; 1: 429, 205; 2: 207, 131; 3: 157, 112; 4: 123, 96; 5: 109, 85.

Definitely holds up to the C1 pass. JoelleJay (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A word of warning: with Spanish/Portuguese/Arabic names GS/Scopus profiles are very often split into any combination and spelling of givenname1-givenname2-familyname1-familyname2 you can think of and many, many that you would not°. That's why it took me so long to get the Scopus analysis up--I ended up going through all of her 256 papers to get her coauthors (because Scopus stupidly doesn't display more than 150 names (of static but unclear inclusion criteria) in its coauthor lists even in "search results format" (non-preview access only), despite their claims, and they wouldn't grant my request to gain API access for "academic research purposes" so I'm stuck doing this for everyone with 150+ collaborators) and manually stitching together complete citation profiles + recalculating h-indices for the 20 or so who appeared multiple times under different profiles. I also searched non-repeated names that seemed especially likely to have been split. The latter is my standard approach with Scopus citation analyses, and it's kind of fun tracking names down and suggesting profile merges to Scopus, but...definitely also a big time sink.

°Like this prolific researcher who goes by a pseudonym and has at least 8 different Scopus profiles under the names "Xim Bokhimi", "Bokhimi", "B. Bokhimi", "José Guadalupe Ramírez Bokhimi", "Bokhimi A Aceves", "A. Aceves", "José G. Pérez-Ramirez", and "José Guadalupe Pérez-Ramirez", five of which appeared in Tessy López Goerne's coauthor list. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 22 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!} 18:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With such complications I wonder if the system can be gamed. Do you see any indications here? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I mean, the only way to really game it would be attempting to merge yourself into other profiles to get a better citation profile. I don't know what their review system of merge requests looks like but I imagine it's got at least some human oversight. Plus a lot of the profiles are linked to their ORCIDs so it would be hard to dupe that. So I don't think it's a problem at the moment. JoelleJay (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Google Scholar citation record is confusing as discussed above, but JoelleJay's analysis has convinced me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Migraine Aura Foundation[edit]

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

No indication of notability. References are limited to a few mentions, not significant coverage. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Germany. PepperBeast (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see passing mentions (e.g., data used in research papers) but insufficient third-party in-depth articles. Also, the website is either dead or nearly dead: it has an expired certificate that's several years old. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MITACS[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. I couldn't find any significant coverage, and the article refs really only establish the bare fact that this company existed. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Austria. PepperBeast (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Definitely existed, but only provided trivial coverage about it during its tenure. W 42 18:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to nominator withdrawal, improvements per HEY and refactored !vote. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 08:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cesarina Ricci de Tingoli[edit]

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

Currently-listed sources fail to demonstrate SIGCOV and she's only in passing mention. Grove Music is no longer online, and only 685 google results show up for Ricci. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Italy. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge into Giovanni Ricci (bishop) (subject was in the family of the bishop), unless the author can bring it up standards. Not enough to stand alone. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 17:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that as well InvadingInvader (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Daffodil's additions to the article. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 12:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, "Grove Music is no longer online"? What? It is literally right here. And since when is 600 google results (I got 800, by the way) not a lot? And a Baroque woman composer?... come on now. Aza24 (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Idk...but grove music showed a browser error for me when I tried to check it reminiscent of a domain not found error. I'll trust you though on that, though. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes old links to Grove are glitchy; one really has to search on the database to be sure. Aza24 (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Norton/Grove Dictionary of Women Composers includes an entry on her, and she is covered in other sources that I have added to the article. Her presence in the Norton/Grove dictionary meets criteria #6 for WP:COMPOSERS ("Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on their genre of music") DaffodilOcean (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Grove entry is adequate to show probable notability alone; it has three sources listed; and as others point out there is also an entry in Norton/Grove Dictionary of Women Composers. This is a completely absurd nomination. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 14:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barre Seid[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Known for only one thing, and only very recent it seems. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (article creator) we have substantial coverage in WP:RS from 2009 to the present over a variety of topic areas. OP's statement is inaccurate and they should amend. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep rationale is incorrect. Andre🚐 18:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't even decide what the "one thing" might be, as there are several well-sourced items in the article. tedder (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, given the WP:Recent concerns as well as the fact that find this guy seems to be known for just being wealthy and giving to mostly a single cause, I'd say that a redirect to the Tripp Lite article and a small section over there might be most appropriate. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You proposed deletion, if you no longer feel that deletion is appropriate you should withdraw your deletion proposal and open a merge discussion on the relevant talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, he is known for several things. Many business people start out by creating a business and then go on to also achieve recognition for politics and philanthropy. This individual clearly meets WP:GNG. Andre🚐 20:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sustained coverage over time, easily meets WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources in article are credible under WP:RS, meets WP:GNG. Moresdi (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The argument to merge is weak; merging a non-notable topic into a DAB isn't based in policy, and no other viable target has been provided. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vere (1790 ship)[edit]

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

"May have been", "little is known", "it is not clear", "apparently", "it will require original research": not clear why this was ever created, but shouldn't be kept any longer. Lacks all notability, in case it wasn't clear. Fram (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Fram (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never should have been created. Wikipedia is neither a database nor a purveyor of original research. I'm alarmed this was created just two years ago, and not in say 2005. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge info into Vere (ship) as a non-hyperlinked note, unless the author can rewrite and provide citations. It does seem to be self-evidently non-notable. Weird. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 16:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From that target: "Vere (1790 ship) may have been a whaler in the British Southern Whale Fishery between 1790 and 1793." We don't deal in speculation. Also, it is not possible to "delete and merge info" for attribution reasons. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and previous comments, obviously. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Unlike, say, the proposed USS United States (CVA-58), there is zero information as to whether the Vere was even designed but not ever built, much less existed. TH1980 (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an inclusionist, my preference is to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result. I learned a long time ago that destruction is much easier than preservation, let alone improvement. Wikipedia has a constructive way of dealing with articles like this, by adding in a stub designation. Doing so facilitates incremental improvement, and even major improvement. I frequently find that when I am working on one vessel in a trade (whaler, convict transport, slave ship, etc.), I find a line about another vessel. That line is not enough to justify an article, but one can add it to an extant article, building up a story. As for major improvement, last week I noticed that someone had edited an article I had put up more than a year earlier. It turned out that the editor had found a book published in 2022 with the vessel's name (Morning Star), in the title, a book all about a particularly horrific act of piracy perpetrated against the vessel's crew and passengers, making the vessel highly notable. I cannot predict, when, if ever, something like this would occur with Vere, but the cost of keeping the option open seems to be nil.Acad Ronin (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with inclusionism; however, there's no way we can keep this as a stand-alone. The best thing to do, to keep the information, is to merge the info into the disambiguation page. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 01:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided no actual justification for retaining this article. Posting the exact same anecdote about some other ship stub in multiple AfDs will not get you anywhere. I'm not convinced you understand how Wikipedia notability works. We don't keep things purely because "someday it might end up being notable". In the extremely unlikely event someone creates a book about this ship, the article can be recreated at that time. I have dedicated a significant amount of time to improving articles, so I am uninterested in hearing paeans to how "destruction is much easier than preservation". This is a stub that anyone could have written in less than 10 minutes tops, and is non-notable by any reasonable interpretation of our notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a mirror of databases. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a merge to a disambiguation page where it would be an entry without an article is not allowed, disambiguation pages are not lists of non-notable subjects but pointers to articles with the same or a very similar name. No article for the 1790 ship = no entry at the disambiguation. It's like a disambiguation for John Smith: only the notable John Smiths are included, the many non-notable John Smiths don't get short entries there. Fram (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then merge the information into the closest ship to the hypothesized 1790 ship, perhaps as a "possible predecessor" or "possible successor." If the ship actually was in existence, it would be a shame to delete the knowledge because of a technical failure of inclusion. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 11:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be pure WP:OR though. Fram (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTEVERYTHING. As Fram says, this would be speculation, blatant original research, and wholly inappropriate for any self-respecting encyclopedia. It astounds me how some will dedicate such effort to retaining garbage stubs like this while ignoring AfDs for actually notable subjects such as lane sharing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, I agree completely. It wouldn't be pure OR, Trainsandotherthings. The stub has references; however, they would need to be verified (presumably by the author, if s/he cares to have the information remain in the wiki). I'm just an inclusionist at heart. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 15:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reference for it being a predecessor or successor to that other ship? If not, it is pure WP:OR to call it a possible prede- or successor or to link them in any way. Fram (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusionist/deletionist spectrum is entirely irrelevant. We don't make things up without evidence, period. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trainsandotherthings, relax. No one is suggesting that we should "make things up." I don't think either one of you understand what I'm saying. I'm saying the article as it stands should be deleted, but with the information being merged into another relevant article if the references can assert notability and can be verified. Fram, I don't have any references for anything for this ship. It's not my responsibility. If the author wants it to stay in WP, s/he needs to bring it up to standards. It doesn't matter to me if the article goes, stays, or gets printed out and sent to the Moon with Artemis. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 16:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge significant and verifiable info, with refs, into its entry at Vere (ship). Davidships (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not inherently opposed to merging significant and verifiable info. The issue is, I don't see any in the article at present. With She never appeared in Lloyd's Register or Lloyd's List so little is known about her origins and fate. Some records state that she was built in 1774, but it is not clear under what name. and It will require original research to establish anything more. we should not be merging anything. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Football in French Polynesia. Star Mississippi 14:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tahiti national under-23 football team[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. They played 5 games in 2015, nothing before or since, and the "current squad" is the team from then. Sources are either databases or not independent (organisers, football association, ...). Fram (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Fram (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Am I reading this right? They lost to Micronesia 0–30?? JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think they won, not lost, but yeah. Fram (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football in French Polynesia - possible search term, but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 18:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, a standalone is not merited but the team could be mentioned in the above article. I imagine there has to be some coverage of that 30–0 match... JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Association of Indian Universities. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vizzy Trophy[edit]

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

This is not a first-class cricket tournament and lacks notability. A PROD has been removed. BoJó | talk UTC 15:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote. I agree with suggestions below per WP:ATD and I also recommend merge into Association of Indian Universities. BoJó | talk UTC 14:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and India. BoJó | talk UTC 15:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete While the tournament doesn't have any official status, there is coverage of the tournament itself, although I'm not 100% sure there's enough to pass GNG. The article certainly needs to be improved though whatever the outcome. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do think there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. The cricinfo article and a few articles on Times of India here, here, and here came up pretty quickly in a google search (showing significant coverage in secondary sources), and the sources seem to indicate that the trophy had more prominence in the pre-internet era so there's a good chance of further sources which wouldn't show up in a search engine. OliveYouBean (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Association of Indian Universities, per WP:ATD. Fails criteria for a standalone article as coverage in available independent reliable sources does not sufficiently extend beyond routine sports reporting, and so there is insufficient content to write a full article (WP:WHYN). However, there is a suitable broader article in which the subject can easily be accommodated with a section there, so that is a better course of action than deletion. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Association of Indian Universities. The tournament itself doesn't look to pass WP:GNG, which isn't surprising as it's not a first-class/List A tournament, and so doesn't receive as much coverage. But merging 2-3 sentences is a valid WP:ATD, not least because the Association of Indian Universities would benefit from the improvement. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Eve in My Home Town[edit]

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

The song Christmas Eve in My Home Town is arguably notable, as it appears to have been "independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups" per WP:NSONG. However, there is no source to suggest this, as the article is sourced to a single reference. Search doesn't throw them all up and, particularly, doesn't show significant coverage from independent sources. A move to draftify failed as there is a draft for this article, which the author was perfectly well aware of when creating this article - which was a bit odd if you ask me. Delete this, keep the draft, is my suggestion placed before your graces. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I created two entries for Wikipedia (the draft mentioned above). I have, in the past, made edits to pages, but never attempted to create a new entry and clearly I biffed it. The oddity mentioned is merely my thinking I was updating or altering the status of one entry, not creating a second (which was the result).

I do believe the song is notable enough to earn an entry - however, I am not skilled at finding suitable sources. I would appreciate any assistance which can be given to flesh out the entry or edit it appropriately. Rstrother (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Draft:Christmas Eve in My Home Town is currently a redirect to the mainspace article, having been rejected in August and redirected three days later. The draft just before it was rejected had only the same single source as mainspace.

As nominator mentions, there's a very good chance this could pass NSONG given artists such as Eddie Fisher and Bobby Vinton have apparently recorded it, but additional sources regarding those recordings are needed to verify their existence. QuietHere (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest of Keep (and only provisionally) if the author provides proper citations. (If) what is said in the article is true, the song appears to be notable. However, unless the author can provide citations, it has to be deleted. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 15:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but with the same keep provision Sallicio mentioned above. QuietHere (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSONG per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows some mentions in directories. SBKSPP (talk) 07:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DiveMax[edit]

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

No indication of notability, and no significant coverage. Article has been orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Software. PepperBeast (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I see are the company website and the various app stores. No sources for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Fifthapril (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:47, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dehorn, Arizona[edit]

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

The only reference I can find to this is in passing to a "Dehorn corral"— maybe. That's what it looks like in every aerial photo up to the present: A square building with a watering tub next to it, and a set of corrals a little further south. I see no sign it was a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Skynxnex (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As near as I can tell, and I've looked through state and national atlases, there was never anything here other than a ranch. No rail station, post office, school, or church. I found almost nothing in newspapers, either. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.~Pog ing Juan 12:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matthieu Raffray[edit]

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

Deleted from French Wikipedia as not notable, it is indeed the case that this gentlemen from France is not any more notable in English than he is in French as a priest, a thomistic philosopher or, indeed, as an influencer. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and France. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment he pops up every so often in French media, I suppose because he does things the Church doesn't like on tik tok. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:25, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can see he has published some of his works, but it doesn't automatically make him notable. --Suitskvarts (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Ingram[edit]

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

Historian and 'officer of arms' - not notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. No sources presented, search reveals no other claim of notability is probable or even possible. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The office of Portcullis Pursuivant is one of a number of posts in the College of Heralds. Some holders of the office appear to have been WP-notable, but the list in that article is clearly incomplete and includes a number of redlinks for pursuivants whom no one has thought to write an article about. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's not actually relevant whether anyone has written an article yet, is it? Wikipedia is an ongoing project. There are countless thousands of notable people who don't yet have articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources cited are not independent and do not contribute to notability; I can find no evidence of any in depth independent sources. Portcullis Pursuivant is a junior position, there's no particular reason to expect that sources exist, and nobody seems to have found any sources since this article was prodded on 1 October. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per sourcing identified during the discussion Star Mississippi 14:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Iceman (performer)[edit]

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

Artist fails WP:GNG, sourced to a Wordpress blog, incidental mentions by others and Edinburgh Festival Fringe programmes. Oh, and an artwork sales website. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Fringe programme is an important publication and a genuine historic document that we are lucky to have available online. The Wordpress blog does not belong to the subject but to a comedy historian and it is filled with interesting items. The Iceman might be obscure but those "incidental mentions" are important and genuine. Moreover, he is mentioned on radio and on podcasts and in printed books quite regularly: I can see people searching for him and finding little in the top pages of Google; as such this Wikipedia article provides a useful index to buried online treasure. Deletion would be ruthless and would serve little advantage. Angry Candy (talk) 19:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, there are authoritative references in the page that @Alexandermcnabb didn't mention in their summary: a review in the Independent for example. Even so, I'd be happy to work to strengthen the references in the article and I'm sure others would contribute too. But could we do it without the threat of deletion hanging over us? With reference to the Fringe Programme and the interview and the commercial reference, could we apply the following tag instead?

This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "2022 October 20" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (October 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Angry Candy (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been adding references where I can. I removed the commercial link objected to and replaced it with a more objective reference. It's not easy to find references for someone whose career predates online media; I know he had several reviews in the Independent but they seem to have vanished. If anyone reading this is good at digging up old items on archive.org, I'd be grateful for any assistance. Angry Candy (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've found and added references from The Stage and The List. The subject is the main focus of these articles; the one from The Stage is a profile. Angry Candy (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep With the sources above, just barely at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am still working hard to support the keeping of this article. I have now added a reference from the Evening Standard and a very substantial reference (a lead article) from The Independent. Angry Candy (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greyhound (1791 ship)[edit]

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

No evidence found of any notability, just databases, primary sources, and passing mentions. Fram (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at least Redirect to Whaling in the United Kingdom as this was a real, documented ship associated with the Southern whale fishery. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk)

Why would we redirect hundreds of ships to a general article? A redirect should normally be a synonym of the target or a subaspect which is actually mentioned in the target, not every random example of the target. Fram (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ship is recorded making voyages to the Southern whale fishery, so it is a plausible search term. See Whaling in the United Kingdom#The southern whale fishery. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And then you would redirect it to an article which has nothing to say about it. Fram (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not specifically, but the section on the Southern whale fishery could be expanded massively. We could also end up with a "List of British whaling ships" article, which we could then re-redirect this too. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a database, and this fails GNG. It should not be redirected to the general article when it's not mentioned at the target. Something being real doesn't inherently make it worthy of an encyclopedia article. The street I live on is real and documented, but that doesn't make it worthy of a Wikipedia article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I do not think we should have an article on every one of the 100,000 ships that must have appeared in Lloyds List. To have a WP article they need to be notable. Nothing in this article demonstrates that. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, Greyhound appeared in three serious secondary sources (two books about whaling ships and their owners, and international database of whaling voyages). There is no fear that all vessels in Lloyd's Register will be the subject of articles. There are few shipping businesses from that era that have books devoted to them. Second, she made only one voyage. Of the 935 or so vessels in the British Southern Whale Fishery, 385 made only one voyage. This is a "curious incident of the dog in the night". Some vessels were lost while whaling, but also it signals that entrepreneurial owners tried this trade, and discovered that it was not profitable enough, at least for them. I will add a line to the article to make the point explicitly. Third, some one from the WP:Ships Project saw the article and rated it "Start" class, rather that immediately suggesting its deletion. The project currently lists 14,622 "C" class articles, 12,408 "Start" class articles, and 8,492 "Stub" class articles.Acad Ronin (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings have precisely zilch to do with notability. Greyhound appeared in three serious secondary sources (two books about whaling ships and their owners, and international database of whaling voyages). that's irrelevant unless this is significant coverage. You don't seem to have any understanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and what you've said right here is largely WP:SYNTH and original research. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Egli Haxhiraj[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are PR. scope_creep^Talk 13:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any coverage, long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Law, and Albania. Skynxnex (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:SIGCOV by a country mile. Makes no serious claim to notability. Jtrrs0 (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination, clearly Fails WP:GNG. NenChemist (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing enough coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV. Moresdi (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of tallest buildings in San Antonio. ✗plicit 13:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Towers at Park Lane[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Has only a single, primary source. Tagged since 2010 due to primary sourcing only. WP:BEFORE search turned up no reliable sources. Promotional tone. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Geography, and Texas. Skynxnex (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~Delete~~. Less coverage (basically none) than I expected even. Only real claim (not mentioned in the article any more but still in [[]]) would be that it is the tallest residential building in San Antonio but that by itself isn't enough. Skynxnex (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to redirect to List of tallest buildings in San Antonio per User:Mellohi!. Skynxnex (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of tallest buildings in San Antonio, where the building is mentioned. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frying Jelly[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Startup. No indication of importance. scope_creep^Talk 13:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mentions in Pocket Gamer and PC Gamer (mostly of one fellow who works there), not enough for GNG I think. Oaktree b (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are countless mentions of the company in business mags, dedicated articles. Pawelotti (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. AllyD (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pawelotti: No not really. It is a classic startup that has been going since May 2022 which makes six months old. Everything you see is PR. And trying to state other is disengenous and outright falsehood. scope_creep^Talk 12:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Can't see any coverage to establish notability. NenChemist (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promo press releases and trivial mentions fail WP:NCORP, WP:BEFORE found no more refs. VickKiang (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete Username is similar to company's founder. Combined with promotional material, Very Obvious COI Advertising. Almost a G11.PerryPerryD Talk To Me 20:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus-Göran Nilsson[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Non-medaling, ranked 18, mostly database sources. Nythar (💬-🎃) 12:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Sweden. Nythar (💬-🎃) 12:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SmartBus#Routes. Closing this early as the page creator has tagged it was CSD G7. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Route 902, Victorian Bus Route[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. A bus timetable is not an acceptable source. Department of Transport (Victoria) is a primary source. PROD notice was removed without addressing issue so soft delete is not an option. Dan arndt (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Dan arndt (talk) 11:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why adding more sources wasn't considerd before the deletetion request. Deleting an article for not having sources shouldn't be the first option. The first option should be to add more avaliable sources to the existing article. NotOrrio (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

during this time i also believe its best to postpone the deletion until the end of this discussion for atleast a week to we can figure out what is best needed for this page NotOrrio (talk) 12:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NotOrrio: which is the rationale for issuing a PROD notice, which allows editors the opportunity to address the issues of notability. The PROD notice was removed within hours without any improvements made to the article.Dan arndt (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SmartBus#Routes. I was unable to find any coverage that would establish this route should be a separate article. -- Whpq (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
as a part of making more wikipedia contributions to buses such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Buses bus routes will be given more detailed information on wikipedia that would simply not fit into a section of an article in addition another part of it was to give special bus routes their own article and since 902 has smartbus status (premiuim bus status in victoria) I believe it will need it's own article NotOrrio (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can show that this should be in its own article by providing significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SmartBus#Routes per above. Not every bus route merits its own article, and the article creator's arguments here are very flawed and mostly WP:ILIKEIT. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest speedy close as redirect Note that the article creator has now converted it to a redirect, with comment "i have made the choice to delete this page keeping it up just isnt worth it anymore". PamD 06:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 08:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Thorburn[edit]

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

No evidence of notability found for this lower-leagues player, passing mentions only. Fram (talk) 10:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Fram (talk) 10:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though sadly he got many paragraphs of coverage in The Daily Record in when he missed a penalty which ~~would~~ might have allowed Whitehill to advance in the Scottish Cup in 1999 (devastating description), and there is a choice quote from his manager in 1998 ("Stuart's goals now give us the psychological boost of going top of the table just before our Scottish Cup tie against Stenhousemuir.") That said, the Scottish newspapers from this period are tricky and if someone feels compelled to search each one individually and access archives, you may be able to find more, so I wouldn't definitively rule out that enough coverage exists to argue WP:BASIC; it just seems highly unlikely. Cielquiparle (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as I can see, the available evidence is that he did not have a notable enough career to merit an article. Dunarc (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 08:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monotonía[edit]

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

Declined PROD by Dan arndt that I think merits further discussion. His concern was:

Fails WP:NSONG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Noting Twitter is not an acceptable or reliable source. Appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON.

– Joe (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems some fairly high profile sources exist: Billboard, Rolling Stone plus quite a few non-English news articles. Surely these now meet the GNG? JMWt (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The song is already released. Why the discussion of deletion. Krups Music (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, early indications that it's going to WP:CHART very soon, allowing it to pass WP:NSONG. There's also clear WP:SIGCOV. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this is almost certain to chart in various countries next week, rendering this AfD redundant. Richard3120 (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Aside from the Billboard and Rolling Stone links in the article, there is also coverage in Pitchfork, a separate Billboard article, two Yahoo! articles (1 and 2), CNN Español. There is coverage third third-party sources. Whether or not this is significant coverage should be more of the question, but I am posting this comment to address the concern about the existence of independent coverage at all. Aoba47 (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the song was just released and has been getting lots of coverage. In the next couple of weeks it will start charting and it's definitely notable. What we should do is work on improving the article by adding more (and better) sources instead of just deleting it. FanDePopLatino (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral to Weak Keep. There is a review in Pitchfork and a very short one at The New York Times. Some of the news coverage might lean on the routine side and might not be SIGCOV but are mostly independent, and given it's just released there's potentially more reviews coming or that it could chart. Therefore, if more reviews are released or if this charts I'll change to keep. VickKiang (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented by Aoba. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfies the requirements of WP:NSONG. Dan arndt (talk) 03:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG guidelines. Erick (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nungambakkam High Road[edit]

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

it's a road in Chennai. It might be busy but there's nothing to suggest it is the busiest or most important road in the city. No references, nothing I can find written specifically about it. JMWt (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 13 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!} 08:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Body Image[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG. Poorly referenced article. SMBMovieFan (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:21, 13 October 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 October 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the intention was to AfD Body Image based on the nom's recent edits JMWt (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Journal fails WP:GNG with no coverage in independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Poorly sourced? Yep, but that doesn't mean that there are no sources. The journal is indexed in the very selective databases Scopus, Social Sciences Citation Index, and MEDLINE, which is a clear pass of WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indexing demonstrates notability per journals SNG. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Psychology. Skynxnex (talk) 15:19, 19 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!} 08:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this was some predatory journal I would move towards deletion, but it's not just poorly sourced. Still passes WP:SNG. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been substantiated, by Randykitty and Elmidae in particular, that quality database indexing demonstrates notability per WP:NJOURNALS and WP:SNG. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have expanded the article and added independent references: WP:HEY. --Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus seems borderline. Nonetheless, anyone is free to improve the article's sourcing with some of the sources indicated in this discussion. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 07:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blackbird Sessions[edit]

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

Was redirected after a PROD was contested, which I view as essentially a "soft deletion" (not sure how that term is officially used). Today the redirection was reverted, which I interpret as an objection of the original soft PROD, hence it's not uncontroversial anymore... but no improvements to the sourcing were made. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. No effective sources. The refs are social media links with no secondary sourcing. The album is just live recordings of cover songs and has no original content. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 22:34, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The ep charted on the US Billboard 200 and US Top Country Albums (Billboard) unclear how these are not enough added another source 199.87.14.15 (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Girl on the Coast" is an original song from Decker's previous EP Gold 199.87.14.15 (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be plenty of links besides the social media links 2 from billboard since this EP charted wouldn't that be enough??? also looks like the youtube links are just for the history of all the live versions she did before deciding to release this EP. Princessfourever (talk) 07:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stop trying to delete this page and put a block on it getting deleted? On 5 November 2017 we had this posted to restore the page

the album charted on two national charts thereby passing WP:NALBUM Princessfourever (talk) 07:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Present coverage from MusicRow and The Country Daily + NewCountry.nl and Taste of Country earns a SIGCOV pass (though The Country Note explicitly calls itself a press release so ignore that), plus the charting that Princessfourever mentioned should not be ignored. I assume scope_creep's "no secondary sourcing" comes from before new sources were added, but "no original content" is not a valid argument against notability and just sounds silly. QuietHere (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NALBUM with sources mentioned and presented by QuietHere. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep this sufficiently sourced article. If it cannot be kept, it should be merged to Jessie Decker, to maintain the history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment any reviews of the album in decent sources? That would help here too. Oaktree b (talk) 13:21, 13 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!} 06:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep to Neutral. I echo Oaktree b's comment that I'm afraid I have to disagree that the two refs (three were provided, but I'm excluding the one labelled as a press release) are all WP:SIGCOV. The second one has some decent critical commentary and is plausibly significant coverage, however, the first one is IMO a short routine announcement of just 132 words that falls under: Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources under WP:GNG, and does not meet multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. Of course, this is my opinion and QuietHere's analysis is well explained as well, so thanks for your explanation! Further, my WP:BEFORE sadly didn't find many reviews except this, which is interview-format with mainly quotes. However, I'm still voting weak keep as it probably meets WP:NALBUM's criteria that The recording has appeared on any country's national music chart as it's on the Billboard top 200 at 175, not the highest rank but still meets WP:CHART. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The consensus the NSPORTS RFC is that must real secondary sources to verify it is notable. Not database generated sources that on this. The consensus is clear. The routine annoucements, the database generated profiles and youtube arent coverage. That is the consensus now. scope_creep^Talk 23:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as the consensus of this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Waddington[edit]

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

Not enough significant coverage to pass the general notability guideline. Also not a notable academic, as a visiting professor. The sources cited in the article are either non-independent or are press releases/sponsored content. I find some passing mentions of Waddington, who is quoted occasionally in news media, but not enough to meet NPROF's 7a criterion, "frequently quoted". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:14, 13 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!} 06:32, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article subject passes neither the general notability guideline nor subject specific guideline at NPROF. MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Kisiel[edit]

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

Volleyball player fails WP:NBIO with no coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and United States of America. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! As someone having no vested interest in the article, I did not think the notability of it was an issue. I went ahead and did more research and believe the sources added were adequate and were good in-depth sources. VolleyFan101 (talk) 08:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hello! As someone having no vested interest in the article, I did not think the notability of it was an issue. I went ahead and did more research and believe the sources added were adequate and were good in-depth sources. VolleyFan101 (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is definitely coverage... sources seem good. I think it meets GNG Supersmash45 (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admin/CU note: I've blocked VolleyFan101 and Supersmash45 for Confirmed socking.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after the only participants except for the nominator are sockpuppets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've limited the search to .fi websites, all I find are hits from Savo Volley, I think is the club he plays for. No mentions in media in Finland or rest-of-world websites. Oaktree b (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Warthen Struble[edit]

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

Zero results in Google News when including his name and the word "composer". Most coverage Struble seems to get is passing mention in articles, and the article so far only references primary sources. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Washington, D.C.. InvadingInvader (talk) 03:46, 13 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!} 03:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to demonstrate notability. Deb (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pony Time. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 03:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pony (dance)[edit]

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

Made a merger proposal here for this a few months ago and forgot about it. Realised now this should be the proper venue for it, especially since nobody ever responded to that proposal and it's been sitting since. Neither this nor the target article have been edited since my proposal so everything I said there still stands. QuietHere (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Dance. QuietHere (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - There's little content/sourcing here, and whatever can be sourced can easily be covered in a "Legacy/Impact" type section of the article for the song that supposedly created the dance. Sergecross73 msg me 04:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the "In popular culture" section at Pony Time. Actually, for two articles that receive very few edits and low readership, simply merging per WP:BOLD would be appropriate, and then if anyone objects it could be reversed. Regardless, the Pony dance looks like a brief craze with some minor pop culture notice but not enough for its own article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pony Time per above arguemnts. SBKSPP (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hockey Victoria. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

East Gippsland Hockey Association[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. I could only find routine coverage in the local newspaper, Gippsland Times. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hockey Victoria as alternative to deletion. No sourceable content to transfer across. Deus et lex (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hockey Victoria as an WP:ATD. Not notable enough for a stand-alone article, but plausible redirect target. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We have three options presented, delete, keep, redirect. None of them have gained real traction. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bentfield Green[edit]

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

This is a 'piece of common land', and is not notable. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a village in Essex and I assume is notable by WP:GEOLAND? There's plenty of hits in the British Newspaper Archive Piecesofuk (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is an OS settlement[4] but perhaps it could be merged to Stansted Mountfitchet as its a suburb of Stansted Mountfitchet. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stansted Mountfitchet as it appears to be, from the newspaper articles, not only the "piece of common ground" but also a neighborhood of Stansted village. It does not appear to be a separate village, thus fails the inclusion guidelines of WP:GEOLAND. However, the Stansted Mountfitchet article does not currently mention Bentfield Green, and a solid source would be needed for its entry there. The 9 March 1989 article from the Saffron Walden Weekly News entitled "Parish determined preserve Stansted estate and agrees with the existing designated light industrial sites" might do the trick for that. @Piecesofuk: --Bejnar (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just mention the OS settlement if no sources confirm the common area. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment Some random additions: I can find one place where Bentfield Green might be referred to as common land (actually a village green); Britishplacenames.uk refers to it as a Populated Place/Other Settlement as part of Stansted Mountfitchet, the entries in the Historic England website list it as part of the parish of Stansted Mountfitchet, the Ordnance Survey gazetteer of Great Britain lists it (alongside Bentfield Bury) as a "City, town, village and so on"; a Bentfield Green Cricket Club existed in the 1930s Piecesofuk (talk) 07:04, 13 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!} 02:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alipay. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2C2P[edit]

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

Promotional cruft whose coverage is just your standard lists, funding announcements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Obligatory mention of WP:SERIESA. BrigadierG (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Companies, Technology, and Singapore. BrigadierG (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Alipay: Since this company is acquired and integrated into Alipay. – robertsky (talk) 03:05, 13 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!} 02:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Alipay. I second User:RobertSky's view here; the article is a PR-fest, but information about it does would not be out of place in the article about its clearly notable parent company. FalconK (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 13:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1994–95 Club Universidad Nacional season[edit]

(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, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 19:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Mister user:Bruxton Hello Sir, I've created The article 1994-95 Club Universidad Nacional 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) 20:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False. Again, 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 by wikipedia users and also, approved, now is censored with new terms. The article clearly is not "unsourced" it clearly has 7 sources/references/links according to the wikipedia rules. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 20:44, 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) 22:03, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) The part about the season is still unsourced.

2) RSSSF is copyright protected. So just copying is not allowed. The Banner talk 09:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -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) 16:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False. They 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) 17:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:27, 7 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!} 22:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was able to find a source about the season. In the newspaper article they describe how the young team fared for the season.

Macias, J. L. (1995, May 17). Arranca la liguilla final:Santos-chivas y UNAM-cruz azul. La Opinión Retrieved from https://library.umaine.edu/auth/EZproxy/test/authej.asp?url=https://search.proquest.com/newspapers/arranca-la-liguilla-final-santos-chivas-y-unam/docview/368267239/se-2

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Inomyabcs (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given how contentious these turned, plus an external keep !voter, willing to give another spin
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This AfD of a top-flight domestic league season in Mexico isn't quite so egregiously bad as The Banner going after Real Madrid seasons (for pity's sake), but it is far from good. Nom plainly hadn't the faintest notion of meeting his obligations under WP:BEFORE, nor any legitimate basis to accuse the article creator of copyvio. A casual search turns up many sources. Why wasn't this even attempted before the nomination? Deletion is not for cleanup of the article. Ravenswing 02:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NSEASONS. It looks like some sources have been found, there are probably more out there. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its implausible that there wouldn't be references for the season of one of the top teams on the continent. Nfitz (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do believe it meets WP:GNG. There's at least one reference in the article that supports it, plus I did find this one. Most sources would probably be offline and in Spanish, so harder to find, but there's already enough to verify that this is notable. OliveYouBean (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arenza Thigpen Jr.[edit]

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

Proposed deletion reference WP:BLP1E. Insufficient notability beyond a single area/event. Cursory Google search shows social media. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 01:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Curbon7 (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete with no claim to notability. Article appears to be a vanity project.--User:Namiba 13:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. and Nambia. Appears to be entirely devoid of WP:RS-based significant coverage. A WP:BLP1E at best, a vanity article at worst. Sal2100 (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arenza has travelled the 🌎 for decades now teaching of the importance of direct Democracy. He is one of the world's leading initiative coordinators. This is multiple events. Arenza is well known & trusted by politicians & the media & of course the petitioners. Petitioning is a huge part of politics in the US.

Arenza is a petition drive manager just like Arno Political Consultants who has been on Wikipedia since 2006. Arenza is a direct democracy activist like Paul Jacob & Richard Winger who are both on Wikipedia. Arenza is notable.

Speedy delete Nothing more than a vanity article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mocka[edit]

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

Possible WP:ADPROMO, or at least doesn't appear to meet notability under WP:COMPANY. Sources cited are the company's own website, trade publications, and trivial mentions in newspapers. Muzilon (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Muzilon (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Australia and New Zealand. Curbon7 (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
del and advert of a nonnotable defunct business. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. Zero RSs on the page and I couldn't find any. Cabrils (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. For all of the reasons put forward by those advocating Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Clement Adams[edit]

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

See discussion at User talk:Sungodtemple/Archives/2#Question from Vipavipa. Sungodtemple (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm vipavipa, I created this article, it is my first attempt at article creation. Sungodtemple gave some interesting feedback. Going through some of the deletion process pages, I feel this article shouldn't have any issues with verifiability, advertisement, vanity, or hoax. We might have beef with violating the No Original Research policy, as to my knowledge there has been no scholarly research done on John Clement Adams. This Wikipedia article is indeed the closest thing to John Clements Adams biography or research that exists.

Accordingly, it follows that we might also have beef with notability. Because I bombed the article with citations, attempting to make the Selected Works look like a database (sorry, another no-no), it may be difficult or time-consuming for someone to review them for notability. There is a NYTimes article cited with some coverage of John Clement Adams, but also reviews in other local newspapers. From a purely professional point of view, is it notable to have been a 30-year chair of the composition department in Boston's second largest conservatory?

I have two general questions, could editors help enlighten? -Question about the 'no original research' policy. I have collected some biographical information about John Clement Adams that hasn't been collected anywhere else, all from verifiable sources. Does this constitute original research? If I take this biographical information and publish it myself elsewhere besides on Wikipedia, even on a generally accepted biographical information website, would it then be acceptable to cite?

-I discovered after publishing the article that there exists a German-language article for John Clement Adams, created earlier this year. I am curious, does the deletion policy affect all languages? My article currently cites all the articles the German-language article cites.

Vipavipa (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)vipavipa[reply]

No you can't just write the article somewhere else and then cite it here. Because that's nonsense. No, deleting on enwiki has no impact on other language wikipedias. Yes, assembling information may well be considered original research. JMWt (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very brief mentions do not give notability. Given the admissions above by the editor above, I think we would need to see some very good RS to keep this page. Or even to just continue this conversation. JMWt (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Massachusetts. Curbon7 (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: To expand on JMWt's comments, each foreign language Wikipedia is an autonomous entity. Over the years, practices and standards have diverged, and articles that pass notability muster on one wiki might not pass on another. The English Wikipedia is stricter than many, and there's no guarantee that a source that passes muster on another Wikipedia automatically does here; it needs to be examined not only on its own merits, but with an eye towards the policies and guidelines in play here.
Now to answer more of Vipavipa's questions, there's a distinction between sources that bolster notability, and sources which support pertinent facts. For instance, the Boston Globe piece cited in the article ("New life for some neglected works") only namedrops the subject, but it's certainly a valid citation for the title and date of composition of the work of Adams performed in that concert, and it's usable in any article that might list that work. As far as whether gathering information from reliable sources constitutes original research, goodness, no: it's the fundamental building block of article creation. However ... no; the rules governing citing your own published works are stringent. You can only do that if you yourself are a recognized authority in the field, and there are other reliable sources affirming that you are, and even there editors are cautioned to think very hard before doing so.
Moving on to the subject at hand, having gone over the sources, I'm satisfied that there's just enough sigcov there to support the notability of the subject. Ravenswing 13:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be enough sourcing to warrant a pass of WP:GNG and maybe WP:COMPOSER. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, AFD is more about what sources exist to show notability, rather than the current state of the article, as per WP:NEXIST. I don't think this is a WP:TNT situation. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:, as I see no valid reason for deletion. Sahaib (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while the article is in definite need of improvement, I don't think deletion is warranted, and the questions raised by Vipavipa could have been addressed on the article Talk page before this article was nominated for deletion.--TommyBoy (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nominator has not given a reason for deletion. When articles are tagged for deletion a valid reason should be given. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 01:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hyatt Regency Valencia[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Coverage is either not significant, not independent, not secondary, or not from reliable sources. The only claim to fame is being the tallest building in Santa Clarita, California (pop. 200,000). WP:BEFORE only reveals spotty coverage from Santa Clarita Valley's local newspaper (The Signal), and coverage is WP:MILL puff pieces which conveniently include the phone number of the hotel at the bottom: they opened a bar! new boss! etc. Not quite the fact-checking RS we would expect to have covered a notable location. Pilaz (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and California. Pilaz (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable building. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If you can throw a paper airplane onto the roof, it ain't notable for its height. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 01:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aztec Lodge, Arizona[edit]

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

Old topos show a tight cluster of buildings, but there's nothing there now, and nothing showed up in searching to give any hint of what it was. Mangoe (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Curbon7 (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.~Pog ing Juan 12:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing more than a lodge. –dlthewave ☎ 04:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm closing this as a Soft Delete as one of the participants here has only 45 edits so I'm just considering this discussion as having 1 supporting Delete statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Auditoria.AI[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The citations in the article do not demonstrate that this article subject is notable, as per the NCORP table below:

NCORP Assess Table

Created with templates ((ORGCRIT assess table)) and ((ORGCRIT assess))
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
The Fintech Times (1)	Per WP:ORGIND, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. Also, this is a regurgitation of a press release.	– This is a (largely verbatim) regurgitation of this press release; see WP:ABOUTSELF.	Moot as clearly non-independent.	This is a regurgitation of a press release
Auditoria (via Yahoo! Finance) (1)	This is a press release	– This is a press release; see WP:ABOUTSELF.	Moot as clearly non-independent.	public announcements of corporate actions (press releases) are not significant coverage, per NCORP.
The Financial Express	The byline is "BrandWagon Online"; it's unclear if this is a press release or not.	The byline is "BrandWagon Online"; it's unclear if this is a press release or not.	This mentions Auditoria.ai only inasmuch as it notes that Gaurav formerly worked there.	There is no secondary coverage of Auditoria in this piece.
Bizjournals	Per WP:ORGIND, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. Additionally, this is an interview with the CEO that is largely not independent content.	BizJournals is reliable, no reason to dispute that this indeed was the interview.	This seems to primarily be about Auditoria.	Per NCORP, interviews by executives are primary sources.
CIOReview	Per WP:ORGIND, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. It also appears to have churned from this press release.	Not a bylined piece; not sure about the overall reputation of this source for fact-checking and accuracy, but it's taking a lot verbatim from this press release without attribution to it.	Per WP:CORPDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage are not considered significant coverage.	public announcements of corporate actions (press releases) are not significant coverage, per NCORP.
Tech Ascension Award	Unknown. However, the awards are pay-to-enter.	Seems reasonable that they won the award given that the website gives out the award.	Per WP:ORGDEPTH, listing of award recipients are trivial coverage.	This is a primary source listing of award winners.
AccessWire via Yahoo! Finance (2)	This is a press release.	– This is a press release; see WP:ABOUTSELF.	Moot as clearly non-independent	NCORP notes that public announcements of corporate actions (press releases) are not secondary sources.
PRNewswire (via Business Insider)	This is a press release.	– This is a press release; see WP:ABOUTSELF.	Moot as clearly non-independent.	NCORP notes that public announcements of corporate actions (press releases) are not secondary sources.
The Fintech Times (2)	While WP:ORGIND requires independent content, this is a regurgitation (largely verbatim) of this press release.	– This is an unattributed nearly verbatim regurgitation of a press release; see WP:ABOUTSELF.	Moot as clearly non-independent.	NCORP notes that public announcements of corporate actions (press releases) are not secondary sources.
Fortune	Fortune is an independent WP:NEWSORG.	Fortune is a reliable WP:NEWSORG.	Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as... capital transaction, such as raised capital is trivial coverage. The coverage in this piece is all of two sentences describing a capital transaction.	This merely notes the existence of a capital transaction and its funders.
Economic Times	WP:ORGIND requires indepdent content, but this article's coverage of Auditoria is almost verbatim lifted from this press release.	– The NPP Source Guide lists The Economic Times as no consensus, and the content appears to be lifted from a press release.	Moot as clearly non-independent	NCORP notes that public announcements of corporate actions are not secondary coverage.
FinSMEs	there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability.	This appears to be a marketing blog.	Per WP:ORGDEPTH, standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as... capital transaction, such as raised capital is trivial coverage.	There is no secondary significant coverage of the company in this blogpost.
VentureBeat	This appears to be independent reporting.	The NPP Source Guide gives it the thumbs up.	This is indeed about the company and is not merely a funding announcement.	Why not?
AccessWire via Yahoo! Finance (3)	This is a press release.	– This is a press release; see WP:ABOUTSELF.	Moot as clearly non-independent.	NCORP notes that public announcements of corporate actions (press releases) are not secondary sources.
Pymnts	there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. Additionally, the article appears to be churn of this press release.	– Editorial policies of the website are unclear as to editorial review; piece is not bylined.	WP:NCORP notes that tandard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage of a product or a product line launch, sale, change, or discontinuance are trivial coverage.	This is a regurgitation of a press release.
ERP News	there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. Additionally, this is an almost verbaitm regurgitation of this press release.	– This is a verbatim press release; see WP:ABOUTSELF.	Moot as clearly non-independent.	NCORP notes that public announcements of corporate actions (press releases) are not secondary sources.
Cloud Awards	Unknown, but it's a pay-to-enter competition.	This is indeed a reliable list for its own awards.	Per WP:ORGDEPTH, listing of award recipients is trivial coverage.	This is a primary-source listing of award recipients and a related shortlist.
R "Ray" Wang	This is a listing of Constellation's Constellation's 2021 Enterprise Awards with commentary by R Wang, who works for Constellation.	This is a self-published blog.	[n]on-notable awards received by the organization are examples of trivial coverage given in WP:ORGDEPTH	Moot as a self-published blog.

Additionally, I am unable to find any additional sources that provide WP:SIRS-level coverage after conducting an online search. There are a number of non-independent blogposts (such as the Forbes Finance Council) and press releases (such as this) I can find that are not included in the article, but nothing else that I see online satisfies both WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. As such, there does not appear to exist WP:SIRS for this article subject, and this article should be deleted per WP:DEL-REASON#8 for failing to meet the relevant notability guideline of WP:NCORP. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, Software, and California. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nom. I will note that some of the text is lifted directly from external websites, per Earwig. The article's creator is a properly disclosed paid editor, so they may have permission to use the verbatim text of press release materials in the page, but I can't find a ticket in VRT related to any of the copied material used in this page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV NenChemist (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV

JulTrio (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 01:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Creek Lodge, Arizona[edit]

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

The name already suggests it isn't a settlement, and there is at least one large building there that could be a lodge or something else entirely. Searching by the name brings up nothing useful except a caption name drop in a book on log cabin construction, and it's not at all clear it's any of the buildings here. I also tried "Rose Creek Ranch" as Google claims there is a short road there by that name, but other than a mess of apparently irrelevant real estate hits (including one in Montana) I got nothing that way. Mangoe (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while not as much as some of the other recent AfD's, there are sources pointing to this as a populated place, such as this, and this, this.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Curbon7 (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The linked National Gazetteer calls it a locale (geography), not a populated place (ppl). It does appear to be a small neighborhood with some homes but I don't see it passing WP:GEOLAND2. Reywas92^Talk 13:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)\[reply]

Delete - No evidence that this place is notable under GEOLAND or GNG, whatever it was. –dlthewave ☎ 15:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:GEOLAND. Passing trivial mentions in newspapers do not meet GEOLAND's "non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources". Cxbrx (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searching finds newspapers references in the 30s/40s calling it a camp or lodge, with "all comforts and conveniences and facilities for outdoor activities such as riding, fishing and hunting in season". Not a populated place. MB 20:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.~Pog ing Juan 12:45, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - simply change the page to the lodge, if you don't think there's enough to show it as a populated place, the lodge clearly has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Creator moved article to draft space. No prejudice against renomination if moved back to article space. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 10:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spinosaurus (Jurassic Park)[edit]

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

Almost the entire article (81%) is direct verbatim of this fandom. It's mostly uncited and no attribution given. Removing the uncited chunk and the remaining could just be included in Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:17, 20 October 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 October 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article creator has draftified the article. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 00:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Summer Tour (Maroon 5 and Counting Crows)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination per consensus at RfD. I have no opinion on whether this article should be deleted or kept. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Dance, and Music. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability for this tour and no viable ATD per the aforementioned RfD. Star Mississippi 01:16, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Star Mississippi, does not meet GNG or NTOUR and an RfD determined not to redirect to one of the groups where it was mentioned.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The tour certainly happened as announced in typical music media sources, but it does not qualify for a separate WP article due to the requirements for further in-depth coverage at WP:NTOUR. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly WP:MILL summer amphitheater tour. Nate • (chatter) 01:33, 21 October 2022 (U§TC)
Delete Fails NTOUR, as well as probably created by TheRedundancy125 sock, that could be qualified for G5, if necessary. ---2600:1700:9BF3:220:45AA:F903:5CA5:F5D1 (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 00:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Damascus (1257)[edit]

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

I cant verify that this battle actually occurred. And the sources that I have found discussing the situation don't mention it. The Baybars seem to have been in Damascus in 1257... but I don't find any mention of a battle in this source: [[5]] or in this source: [[6]] which mentions a battle in Nablus and Gaza, but not in Damascus. If they plundered Damascus, I think it would be mentioned. I can't find the sources cited in the article, but unless someone can find any reference to this battle, I'm forced to conclude that it may be a hoax, or that the sources are somehow conflating it with the Mongols taking the city in 1260. Any help identifying verifying sources or sources that don't mention any battle in that time period would be helpful. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)^{(or here)}}} 00:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of many problematic battle articles created by this editor. All share the characteristic of being covered in a couple of offline Turkish sources while an online search reveals nothing significant or nothing at all about them. I couldn’t find anything about this alleged battle either. Mccapra (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a legit hoax then. Pretty rare find. I've only ever found a handful of hoax articles while reviewing, and this was probably the most convincing of them (though it followed the classic pattern of offline sources only for a historical article). I actually missed your "factual accuracy" tag when I was reviewing and went straight to the book searching, but it seems you spotted it first. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)^{(or here)}}} 01:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same formula as the rest of Gokturklerrr's article creations: mentioned briefly in a chronicle, given the title of battle to appear convincing, sourced from offline Turkish sources to appear realistic, and all of them failing WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:PRIMARY. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Egypt, and Syria. Curbon7 (talk) 12:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: even if we assume it's real, we have nowhere near enough sources to write an article about it. I don't believe it's real, though - I can find a few things saying they left Damascus in 1257, which makes it unlikely they had a battle there (did they conquer a city just for fun and then go off to do other things?)

I believe Syedah Fatima Sadeque's Baybars I of Egypt is an English translation of the Ibni Abduzzahir source, but I could not find a full enough copy to verify anything in it. 3mi1y (talk) 08:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can find passing mentions of Baibars defeating Sinjar al Halabi in a battle for Damascus circa 1261. See W B Bartlett (2008) ("[A]nother Mamluk general, Sinjar alHalabi, had seized Damascus. Although he was popular with the Damascenes, they were not strong enough to resist Baybars' army and the city soon fell to him.") and Flocel Sabaté ·(2020) ("Sinjar al - Halabi coronated himself as the Sultan of Damascus . Baibars failed to solve the situation through peaceful means , had to crush Sinjar al - Halabi's rebellion by force , captured him 1261 AD / 659 H.") Not suggesting this satisfies GNG, but it may not be a hoax. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is far from clear how this article fits into the course of events related in the article on Baybars. If kept the article would need to be expanded to show who he was and some context provided as to who had been ruling Damascus previously. I am not formally voting as I do not know about the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. No deletion rationale provided by nominator. This article can be nominated again with an appropriate justification for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biel TVZ[edit]

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moniiquedecastro (talk • contribs) 06:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD was created with no rationale for deletion, however the edit summary of the AfD tag addition was Sources with self-promotions he taught himself how to create an entry, making it clear that he himself created his entry. Where he teaches how to make an artist page on Wikipedia English, I leave a video of him below, leaving no doubt that he created this page. YouTube link: https://youtube.com/watch?v=0tVa196YoKg&feature=youtu.be https://web.archive.org/web/20221020061035/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tVa196YoKg&feature=youtu.be * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, and also the above is true: he really did publish a video about self-promoting on Wikipedia. Horcoff (talk) 05:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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