< October 21	October 23 >

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume de Ramel[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, non-notable, article filled with self-promotion and puffery Bangabandhu (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Rhode Island. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability bar for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, but this is failing to properly establish that he had preexisting notability for other reasons independently of unsuccessful candidacies. The content about his prior career is referenced almost entirely to primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in news articles that aren't about him, none of which is support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Definitely fails NPOL as someone who's candidacy never even reach a general election, let alone being elected to a significant office. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable and unelected politician. Contributor008 (talk) 17:31, 29 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The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ~Styyx^Talk? 15:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mesut Yavaş[edit]

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

Placed 42nd in the Olympics and WP:BEFORE didn't give me much more than what was written on wikipedia. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Turkish record holder both indoor and outdoor + regional and international experience. Therefore I find the notion of no sources existing to be out of the question. The current article is pretty worthless though. Geschichte (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You are correct. I probably requested to delete the wrong article. The one I wanted to delete was a different one and much shorter.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Chronicle Is it OK for you if I close this as "withdrawn" then? ~Styyx^Talk? 14:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Styyx, Of course. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

or yes, if this is more clear. I withdraw the nomination for deletion. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:30, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Blair[edit]

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

I have not been able to locate sufficient WP:SIGCOV to justify retaining this as a standalone article. The websites currently cited appear to be fansites and are not reliable. All hits on Newspapers.com are ads for the series. No coverage on JSTOR. TWL turns up one book mention, in Good Girl Messages: How Young Women Were Misled by Their Favorite Books, but it only briefly mentions Connie Blair. The single reliable book source in the article, The Girl Sleuth, is similarly brief about Connie.

I would be satisfied with a redirect to series author Betty Cavanna (there is little reliable content to bother merging). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment gets name-dropped here, but from the snippet view that doesn't look like SIGCOV. Jclemens (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Carpan, Carolyn (2009). Sisters, Schoolgirls, and Sleuths: Girls' Series Books in America. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. pp. 78–79, 94, 105. ISBN 978-0-8108-6395-8. Retrieved 2022-10-17 – via Google Books.
  The book notes on pages 78–79: "Career girl Connie Blair, who begins with a brief modeling career and then moves into the advertising world, arrived in the late 1940s. The series was written by author Betty Cavanna, who was already known for her light teenage romance stories ... Using the pseudonym Betsy Allen, she combined career and mystery in the Connie Blair series. In The Clue in Blue, Connie works as a clothes model at Campion’s Department Store."
  The book further notes: "Romance figures more prominently in the Connie Blair series than in the other career stories of the late 1940s, since their author was known for her romantic stories, and the series was criticized for its “boy of the book concept.” Since Connie dates a different boy in each book, none of the romances are serious, and she remains committed to her career. Critics agree that the Connie Blair series, like the Vicki Barr series, generally accepts and promotes sex role stereotypes for both men and women in the 1940s, but Chamberlain argues that the Connie Blair series questions these stereotypes directly: ..."
  The book notes on page 94: "Betty Cavanna ... continued her Connie Blair career series under the pen name Betsey Allen until 1958."
  The book notes on page 105: "Advertising executive Connie Blair, whose author abandoned the series in the late 1950s, was revived twice in the 1960s by publisher Grosset & Dunlap, once in hardcover and once in paperback. Her final appearance during the 1970s was in paperback."
2. Axe, John (2002). All About Collecting Girls' Series Books: Nancy Drew, Judy Bolton, Cherry Ames, Penny Parker, Kay Tracey, Beverly Gray, Connie Blair, Vicki Barr, Dana Girls & Others. Grantsville, Maryland: Hobby House Press. ISBN 978-0-87588-635-0.
  This Google Books link has a copy of the cover of the book. This is an "encyclopedia of beloved girl's series books" and "Connie Blair" is included in the subtitle.
3. Chamberlain, Kathleen R. (1991). "Every Girls' Ambition: Careers in Girls' Series Fiction, 1940–1970". Dime Novel Round-Up. 60 (6): 109–110.
  I do not have access to this article. These quotes are from Carpan 2009. The article notes: "Though Connie Blair starts out as a receptionist at her advertising agency, she eventually goes to art school, wins promotions in the art department, and gets plum assignments to do on her own."
  According to Carpan 2009, "Chamberlain argues that the Connie Blair series questions these stereotypes directly" and quotes Chamberlain as saying about Connie Blair: "The series publishers obviously were not interested in reforming sex role stereotypes in the professions. They simply wanted to produce books that would appeal to adolescent girls. And just as obviously, the readers were interested in glamorous careers that could make exciting reading. Models, stewardesses, actresses, and nurses fit the bill well without requiring the readers to enter completely alien territory."
4. Mason, Bobbie Ann (1995) [1975]. The Girl Sleuth. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press. p. 117. ISBN 0-8203-1739-X. Retrieved 2022-10-17 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "In the early books Connie can't go out the door without the reader being told how she looks that day. She is neat, chic, blonde. Even when she loses sleep over a case, she doesn't lose her looks [quote] Other girl sleuths are outside time and history—they are mythic—but Connie Blair mysteries are concerned with immediate commercial and social values. The stories have a certain psychological dimension, but the effect is flat and flabby. The later stories conform more rigidly to the conventional girl detective formula, and Connie gains more freedom."
  The 1975 edition of the book notes: "The glamour girl image is even more extravagant in Connie Blair mysteries, the most obviously sexist and the least inspiring of them all." A 1986 review of the 1975 edition of the book says, "In fact, she believes that "the priority of Connie Blair books is sexist teachings." (p. 115)"
5. Murray, Gail Schmunk (1998). American Children's Literature and the Construction of Childhood. New York: Twayne Publishers. p. 177. ISBN 0-8057-4107-0. Retrieved 2022-10-17 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "The one career series that was popular in the fifties, the Connie Blair mystery series, features a beautiful young blond working in a highly glamorized ad agency. The stories present her as more concerned about her appearance and her clothes than about her work; she seems to gain needed information or advance her career chiefly by playing up her femininity rather than through her competence. Betsy Allen, the author, was actually the pseudonym of Betty Cavanna, a popular writer of high school romances, the most popular fictional genre for girls. The Connie Blair series implies that even a working woman needs to know how to catch a man."
6. Breen, Jon L. (1981). What About Murder? : A Guide to Books About Mystery and Detective Fiction. Metuchen, New Jersey: Scarecrow Press. p. 39. ISBN 0-8108-1413-7. Retrieved 2022-10-17 – via Internet Archive.
  The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "By the way, Betsy Allen's (Betty Cavanna's) Connie Blair gets the nod as heroine of the most sexist girls' series."
7. O'Keefe, Deborah (2006) [2000]. Good Girl Messages: How Young Women Were Misled by Their Favorite Books. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. pp. 80–82. ISBN 978-1-4742-8683-1. Retrieved 2022-10-17 – via Google Books.
  The book provides three sentences of coverage about the subject. notes on page 80: "Juicier than Nancy Drew and more sentimental was Betsy Allen's Connie Blair, another girl detective I liked. Perhaps the spunky quality many girls admired in Nancy was the reason I preferred Connie Blair. First appearing in the 1940s, Connie worked for an advertising agency."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Connie Blair to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the series. None of the sources above is significant coverage, mere mentions. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The book series received 230 words of coverage in Carpan 2009, an encyclopedia entry about the series in Axe 2002, 108 words of coverage in Murray 1998~~O'Keefe 2006~~, and at least 94 words of coverage in Chamberlain 1991 (I do not have access to this article; the quotes are all from Carpan 2009). This is not "mere mentions". This is "significant coverage". Cunard (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard: Thanks for your comments! I've had a look and IMHO this is borderline. I concur the Carpan ref is SIGCOV, whereas the O'Keefe and Chamberlain ones at 108 and 94 words are very borderline, debatable per Wikipedia:One hundred words (yes it's an essay but just my subjective metric- feel free to disagree). Further, could you demonstrate that the Axe ref is RS? I couldn't find info clearly indicating the author is a subject-matter-expert or that the publisher, Hobby House Press, is a credible one with editorial policies. Of course, I'm not voting now but if you could address the concern with the Axe ref that would be great! Thanks for your time and work! VickKiang (talk) 11:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you said that The book provides three sentences of coverage about the subject for the O'Keefe one. How is that WP:SIGCOV? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a mistake. I meant Murray 1998 instead of O'Keefe 2006. I've corrected this in my comment, thank you. I've discussed why I consider John Axe and Hobby House Press to be reputable in more detail below. Cunard (talk) 23:07, 23 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!} 22:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As requested by VickKiang above, I will discuss John Axe and Hobby House Press in more detail. I consider John Axe to be a reputable author on collectibles like dolls and childrens' series books. I consider Hobby House Press to a well-respected publisher in the field of collectibles. I've provided sources below that show this.
1. Sources about the author John Axe and the books he published with Hobby House Press:
  1. Cox, Larry (2004-09-04). "It's no mystery. Give a girl style, independence and adventure, and you've got Nancy Drew" (pages 1 and 2). Arizona Daily Star. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2022-10-23. Retrieved 2022-10-23 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Since 1949, when John Axe read his first Nancy Drew book, the Youngstown, Ohio, resident has been more than just a fan of the series and others, such as the Hardy Boys. Such have been the enthusiasm and knowledge of the former teacher that when approached by Hobby House Press to write two reference books about boys' and girls' series books, he agreed without hesitation. Axe, 60, has written more than 24 reference books for the company. But he says that the "All About Collecting Girls' Series Books" and "All About Collecting Boys' Series Books" were the most fun to research. "
  2. Cox, Larry (2005-03-11). "It's no mystery for girl sleuth fans: Nancy Drew editions still coveted". Tucson Citizen. Archived from the original on 2022-10-23. Retrieved 2022-10-23 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "According to John Axe, in his fascinating book, "All About Collecting Girls' Series Books" (Hobby House Press, $27.95), Nancy's mystery solving was almost always for the purpose of helping people who were powerless and in trouble. ... For the values of both first and later editions, I highly recommend Axe's book. In addition to information about the collectibility of Nancy Drew, the author sorts out the values and publication dates for other popular sets including those featuring ... Connie Blair ... ... There is a companion book, "All About Collecting Boys' Series Books," also compiled by John Axe and published by Hobby House Press. It, too, is highly recommended."
  3. Cox, Larry (2007-06-17). "Collectors Corner". The Dunn County News. King Features Syndicate. Archived from the original on 2022-10-23. Retrieved 2022-10-23 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "John Axe is the author of two excellent books about this field of collecting: All About Collecting Girls' Series Books, and All About Collecting Boys' Series Books, both published by Hobby House Press."
  4. "Paper-doll artist John Axe to sign books in Tiffin". Fremont News-Messenger. 2001-10-06. Archived from the original on 2022-10-23. Retrieved 2022-10-23 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Axe is the author of hundreds of research articles and many books about dolls, teddy bears and other collectibles. He is a past editor of Doll News, the journal of the United Federation of Doll Clubs, and has designed paper dolls for UFDC convention souveneirs and journals and for a popular series published by Hobby House Press."
  5. McCutchan, Ann (1987-12-18). "Kewpies came to life in artist's dream". Tucson Citizen. Archived from the original on 2022-10-23. Retrieved 2022-10-23 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "One of the best sources available on the subject is John Axe's new book "Kewpies — Dolls & Art of Rose O'Neill & Joseph L. Kallus" (Hobby House Press, hardback $19.95) which contains many photographs, detailed description and charts of manufacturers."
    The article further notes, "Jan Foulke's "Blue Book, Dolls & Values" (Hobby House Press, paperback $14.95) contains reliable sample prices."
  6. Hawkes, Harry (1990-07-28). "Bears of the cuddly kind". Burton Mail. Archived from the original on 2022-10-23. Retrieved 2022-10-23 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Now Mr John Axe, a collector of dolls, Teddies and toys, has compiled a history of the company and its products, a book which is both an invaluable guide to any collector and of general interest to others. The Magic of Merrythought: A Collector's Encyclopedia is published by the American publishers, Hobby House Press Inc and is obtainable at £16.25 (from the publisher's British distributors, Gazelle Book Services, Falcon House, Queen Square, Lancaster LA1 IRN.)"
  7. Petersen, Clarence (1985-02-03). "Biography pierces Cary Grant's image". The Central New Jersey Home News. Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-10-23. Retrieved 2022-10-23 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article reviews "Blue Book of Dolls & Values — by Jan Foulke; Hobby House Press, $12.95" and "Celebrity Doll Price Guide & Annual — by John Axe and A. Glenn Mandeville; Hobby House Press, $5.95." The book review note: "These books make clear that dolls have become big-ticket collectibles."
  8. Bohlin, Virginia (1978-05-28). "Quint-o-mania spurs price hikes in Dionne-related collectibles". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2022-10-23. Retrieved 2022-10-23 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "John Axe spent several days with them last fall in the preparation of his book, "The Collectible Dionne Quintuplets." Many of the dolls and Quint items in the Rodolfos' collection are pictured in the book, published recently by Hobby House Press in Riverdale, Md."
  9. Rosenkrantz, Linda (1987-10-11). "New books for specialized collectors abound". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2022-10-23. Retrieved 2022-10-23 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Kewpie Dolls and Art by John Axe, Hobby House Press Inc., Cumberland, Md. 183 pages, $19.95. This profusely illustrated reference volume devoted to the charming creations of Rose O'Neill and Joseph Kallus is the result of meticulous research by John Axe (author of The Encyclopedia of Celebrity Dolls), who was granted access to Kallus' files. ... The chief value of the work lies in its coverage of all types of Kewpie dolls and figurines, as well as other O'Neill and Kallus creations."
2. Sources about Hobby House Press:
  1. "About Us". Hobby House Press. 2001. Archived from the original on 2006-12-14. Retrieved 2006-12-14.
    The "About Us" page notes: "Started in 1942 Hobby House Press, Inc. pioneered providing books on antiques via mail order. Thousands of customers were able to obtain hard-to-find research information on furniture, dolls, silver, glass and a myriad of other antiques. In the early 1970's the company concentrated its efforts on publishing books and magazines on dolls and later added teddy bears as a topic. Doll Reader magazine was first published in 1972 followed by Teddy Bear & friends magazine ten years later."
  2. "Magazine caters to doll artists". Miami Herald. 1991-01-06. Archived from the original on 2022-10-23. Retrieved 2022-10-23 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "A new magazine aimed at filling the needs of doll artists has been launched by Hobby House Press. Doll Artistry is a bimonthly designed and written as a resource guide for those who make or dress dolls. ... Hobby House Press also publishes the magazines Doll Reader, Vintage Fashions, and Teddy Bear and Friends, as well as books on collectibles."
  3. Rinker, Harry (1998-07-19). "Youth makes restaurant-ware teapot tepid in value". The Morning Call. Archived from the original on 2022-10-23. Retrieved 2022-10-23 – via Newspapers.com.
    The book notes: "Double-check Herlocher's values in Jan Foulke's "13th Blue Book: Dolls & Values" (Hobby House Press, 1997, $17.95, 320 pp.) and/or Polly and Pam Judd's "Hard Plastic Dolls II: Identification and Price Guide" (Hobby House Press, 1994, $14.95, 263 pp.). Marjorie A. Miller's "Nancy Ann Storybook Dolls" (Hobby House Press, 1980, 232 pp.), a detailed history of the doll, is out of print."
  4. Frank, Lorrie De (1986-12-28). "Dolls more than something to toy with". The Ithaca Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-10-23. Retrieved 2022-10-23 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Author Jan Foulke, an authority on doll collecting, said ... The Foulkes teamed up with Hobby House, publishers of Doll Reader magazine, and Thelma Bateman to produce their first book. The Foulkes exclusively have written and photographed the six successive editions. Blue Book is published by Hobby House Press."
  5. Parker, Melody (2001-11-18). "Couple turns hobby into series of books". The Waterloo Courier. Archived from the original on 2022-10-23. Retrieved 2022-10-23 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "These charming images of rare, antique and unique photographs from the extensive collections of Mary and Steven Wikert of Ceder Falls, have been gathered and published in a series of "Cherish Me Always" books from Hobby House Press."
Cunard (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral to Weak Keep. The 200-word long Carpan ref seems to be WP:SIGCOV and the John Axe ref seems to be demonstrated to be RS by Cunard. These two sources are likely WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV and confer borderline notability. The other two refs at approximately 100 words are IMHO debatably WP:SIGCOV per Wikipedia:One hundred words, so I'm at neutral to weak keep. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Cunard's sources and analysis. Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 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!} 20:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loïc Dachary[edit]

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

Notability not established Dachary (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for Loïc Dachary

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and France. Shellwood (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Reason: WP:SPIP and WP:SIGCOV. The page specifically lacks "significant coverage" and is not "independent of the subject". The page for this person was deleted on French Wikipedia for lack of notability. In fact, the French page was created and "maintained" by Loïc Dachary himself, aka heavy self promotion. The English WP entry at least was created by another person, however Dachary has regularly edited and added his projects on the page and used it like his personal CV. Most of these projects are not of significant notability that would distinguish him from other (free) software developers/advocates. On top of that, the majority of the references in the page are self-referential and link to pages/projects he has created himself. --Erdpferd (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have in the past edited this page a number of times to cut out the most significant bits of self promotion and I'm happy he has himself now added his page to the deletion roster after the French page was taken down. Erdpferd (talk) 18:25, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Berry (Associated Press news personality)[edit]

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

Unable to find any sources with significant coverage to suggest the subject is notable. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, News media, and Russia. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This reads like a bad PR piece, i.e., an Associated Press reporter is not called a "news personality." A Google search turned up only articles written by the subject and nothing to show notability about the subject. Fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cut and pasted from a LinkedIn bio? There is nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article has somehow managed to survive almost 17 years with no reliable, independent sources, nor even any unreliable or non-independent sources that at least would be available online (despite being about a living person active during the Internet era). In the unlikely event that this article is kept, it should be moved to Lynn Berry (editor) which would be a better disambiguation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero sources. No notability shown. And even it could be, the article with that kind of content and naming is better to rewrite from scratch. --Suitskvarts (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. Fifthapril (talk) 05:34, 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. Having been relisted twice, I am skeptical that a third relist would have a meaningful difference. The keep that found that notability should be derived from a video by a youtuber was given no weight because it was not grounded in policy. GHITS is considered to be a poor argument by the community, so I did not find it persuasive. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NewPipe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Product fails WP:NPRODUCT. Not only are the sources in the article primary or not reliable, but also there are no other sources that are significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources that could be found by searching on Google. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. NewPipe was featured on a big German newspaper called Bild. I don't know if the "Google test" is still a thing, but if it is, NewPipe is widely talked about on technology blogs and forums. Maybe more reliable sources could be found. –Daveout(talk) 23:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep Newpipe is notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMBMovieFan (talk • contribs) 17:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC) strike sock vote-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newpipe is a relatively well known alternative for watching YouTube videos. One single person who hasn't heard of the tool or doesn't understand the reason for the need, seems seems like a poor reason to deem the work of 100s of devs over 7 years as, "Not Notable". Especially knowing some of the very arcane items (some with very little data) that WP lists.

How did I see this "deletion" page? Newpipe has been referenced multiple times over multiple years at ghacks.net (Most recently - https://www.ghacks.net/2022/10/21/google-is-increasing-the-price-of-youtube-premium-family-significantly/) and after all of the posts about it over the years, I wanted to learn more. 70.112.82.122 (talk) 06:22, 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!} 19:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Press releases/PR sources aplenty, links to their own website. Bild is about the only thing covering them for an RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Bild is the German analogue to the Daily Mail, seeing anything there makes me assume the opposite is true. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Louis Rossmann devoted a video to them.^[1]--Froglich (talk) 06:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current references seem to be mostly not independent, and I can't really find many new independent and reliable ones. echidnaLives - talk - edits 06:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Qatar Foundation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Innovation Summit for Education[edit]

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

This is one of many articles written by employees of the Qatar Foundation to advertise the organization's activities. There is very little to indicate that this is an independently notable subject. If there is anything worth keeping, it should be merged with Qatar Foundation. Thenightaway (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Qatar. Shellwood (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:05, 15 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!} 19:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete links for the conference, speakers lists, I don't think it's any more notable than the hundreds of other conferences yearly. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 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 keep. Regardless of whether the nomination has been withdrawn/extant keep vote, there is a consensus to keep Star Mississippi 02:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Elbow[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS, mentions in sources are in passing or are from it's own website. Was unable to find anything sources that independently cover this website.~~ Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Article has greatly improved, sources are sound and there is a long trackable history of coverage. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Websites. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Elbow is one of the most famous and most visited MMA websites in the world. It's verified on twitter and Facebook and has hundreds of thousands of followers across those platforms. I write for this site and am struggling to see why this article would be recommended for deletion when similar site MMA Fighting (which is also owned by Vox Media) has a Wikipedia page. This is my first time attempting to post something o Wikipedia, so please forgive my lack of skill and knowledge in this process. But Bloody Elbow is extremely well known within the MMA media world and is at the forefront of reporting when it comes tonissues like anti-labor practices in MMA and the intersections between combat sports and politics/crime/conflicts. If I need to put more sources in there, I will, but I really feel as though the current links show thay this site is notable (our work being featured on HBO's Real Sports feels like undeniable proof of this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:3C01:FA00:AD5B:D5F9:436D:1AB6 (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey no worries, if you can find some sources that support that just post the links here and I'll add them to the article for you. Sorry if this caused any frustrations or anything, I'm not well versed in MMA but when I went looking for sources I wasn't able to find any. But you probably know more than me about this which is great because you probably know where the sources we need for this article are. Give these policies and guidelines a quick once over (WP:RS, WP:GNG, & WP:INDEPENDENT) and if you find something that you think works just post it here and I'll help you out so we can get this taken care of asap. One of the principles of Wikipedia is we assume good faith in people's edits so don't worry if you make a mistake or misstep we're all here to help. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:10, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for getting back to me and providing this advice. I must admit making a page is quite intimidating, so I appreciate the encouragement here. Below are some links which I think demonstrate Bloody Elbow's renown and popularity within the mma website industry (thanks again!):

https://blog.sbnation.com/2010/3/6/1357488/better-know-a-blogger-bloody

https://www.websiteiq.com/top-sites/fighting-mma/

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1731394-the-ufc-fans-guide-to-the-internet-the-mma-media-musts

https://martialartsdesigner.com.au/top-martial-arts-websites/

https://mymmanews.com/top-mma-news-sites/

https://aelieve.com/rankings/websites/category/sports/top-mma-sites/

https://feedly.com/i/top/mma-blogs

https://blog.feedspot.com/mma_blogs/

Do you believe these are sufficient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:3C01:FA00:AD5B:D5F9:436D:1AB6 (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. All of the sources listed here are self published blogs/websites and are therefore not reliable.4meter4 (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, just got busy with other stuff today. So we try to stay away from blogs and look for independent sources. How about you make an account, it'll make it easier for us to communicate back and forth and it'll protect your privacy. Everytime you post here without an account we all see your IP address. I'll make this a priority tomorrow morning and try to find some things that can help bolster this article. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of those links are not "self-published blogs/websites". Bleacher Report is owned by Warner Bros. And SB Nation is owned by Vox media. Neither are akin to Tumblr or something without editorial oversight.

Also, I believe you may be discounting the edits on the oage which show the multiple award nominations for the site and their journalists from The World MMA Awards, which is a respected award within the industry.

The recent edits also show that BE's work has been cited by HBO, The New York Times and the Washington Post. I don't think those outlets would do second hand reporting sourcing a non notable media source.

When a NYT writer decided to learn about how to cover MMA, they studied Bloody Elbow. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/04/insider/reporter-mixed-martial-arts.html

The updates also show that notablenjndivoduals have worked at Bloody Elbow, including pro fighters past and present.

BE's work, within the industry, is known to be unique and important. They are the only site that rigorously covers incidents of domestic violence, anti-labor practices and connections between fighters and criminals (Kinahan) and warlords (Kadyrov) at the expense of gaining access to organizations like the UFC.

BE is also home to Karim Zidan, whose coverage specializes in sportswashing. He has traveled the world to talk to audiences about this practise. He was on a panel with Gary Kasparov at the Oslo Freedom Forum and has also given a talk at Princeton University.

https://karimzidan.com/discussion-saudi-arabias-sportswashing-tactics-w-karim-zidan-garry-kasparov-areej-al-sadhan/

https://oslofreedomforum.com/speakers/karim-zidan/

https://karimzidan.com/the-politics-of-mma-in-russia-a-conversation-with-karim-zidan-at-princeton/

BE is an extremely notable media source in the world of MMA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:3C01:FA00:AD5B:D5F9:436D:1AB6 (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's some really good points, I didn't know that Bleach Report was owned by Warner Brothers. Thanks for this honestly it's really helpful. Also thanks for being cool and helping us. By working to establish notability we're preventing the article from being deleted down the road. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've gone and added some sources. For whatever reason I never even thought to check the academic sources. That's my own bias and ignorance which is on me. I found Bloody Elbow is used a LOT in MMA research...which as an academic I should have known existed. Everything from gender studies to business school cites this website. I think the problem here is that Bloody Elbow and a handful of other sites are the only real sources for MMA information so they aren't documented in ways that most articles are used to. I'm going to put some more work into this ove rthe coming days but as it stands now I believe it passes notability and any minor issues that pop up can be handled with our IP editors assistance. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for that! I'd forgotten about academic papers. Here's another one: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1527002519885432

Bloody Elbow was also named in a report from NPR, where they called us 'an online karate magazine', which has since become a meme. https://www.npr.org/2014/03/23/293255143/new-test-improves-detection-of-performance-enhancing-drugs

I should also let you know that this page will likely become a target of vandalism and abuse. Bloody Elbow is quite alone in being an obviously progressive platform within an extremely right wing sport. Our writers are often subjected to online abuse, many of which has been encouraged by actual pro fighters and UFC President Dana White (who is very anti-media, he just appeared on Tucker Carlson celebrating that stance). 2607:FEA8:3C01:FA00:B014:2204:2C82:810D (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dr vulpes, you nominated this article for deletion and now cast a Keep vote. Which reflects your opinion on this article? If you believe this article should be kept, you should probably withdraw your nomination. It wouldn't close this AFD but without doing so, your take on this article is very confusing for any editor who wants to participate in this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opss I knew I forgot to do something, thanks for the nudge @Liz! Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage has been demonstrated in my opinion. Majority of the sources listed are literally just websites that rank other websites, some of them with a brief description of the site's process and reputation. The SBNation article cannot be used as it is a forum post by some fan of the site. WebsiteIQ, feedly.com, feedspot articles don't even go into any depth on their ranked websites. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 06:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but what about The New York Times, Washington Post, HBO Real Sports and all the academic papers?

Here's an article from deadspin:

"SB Nation’s combat-sports sites—MMA Fighting, MMA Mania, Cageside Seats, Bloody Elbow, and Bad Left Hook—account for a sizable chunk of total SB Nation traffic, about 15-20 percent over the seven months we analyzed. While staffers at the high-profile blog MMA Fighting, which was acquired by Vox Media in 2011, are full-time, salaried employees like those at SBNation.com, the other combat-sports sites, like the team sites, are staffed mostly by people earning a small monthly stipend. “SB Nation employs three full-time employees and approximately 45-50 paid contributors across Bloody Elbow, Cagesideseats, MMAmania, and Bad Left Hook,” a Vox spokeswoman told me."

https://deadspin.com/leaked-data-show-vast-majority-of-sb-nation-page-views-1803138754

Here is Business Insider citing an original report from BE https://www.businessinsider.com/ufc-fighter-jon-jones-could-get-slapped-with-a-4-year-ban-2018-2

Here is the American Prospect interviewing a BE writer https://prospect.org/power/incredible-fight-trump-and-ultimate-fighting-championship/

Here is the National Center for Domestic and Sexual Violence citing original BE reporting. http://www.ncdsv.org/publications_UFC.html

Reference from Tech Crunch https://techcrunch.com/2013/10/15/sb-nation-partners-with-blogtalkradio/

The Verge citing original reporting https://www.theverge.com/2013/4/9/4204908/martial-arts-champ-responds-to-rape-allegations-with-internet-marketing-trickery

The SBN Lakers site referencing Bloody Elbow's success within the network:

"And, if you only consider blogs which started from scratch (some blogs, like CelticsBlog, existed in another form before transferring to SB Nation), SSR might be the fastest growing blog in SB Nation's history. I asked my boss if anybody had accomplished what we've done faster. It turns out this isn't exactly a known fact, but the only possibility he could think of was Bloody Elbow, which is only one of the foremost Mixed Martial Arts blog on the entire web. As a point of reference, Bloody Elbow had 1.9 million hits last month alone, and we might not have started out as fast as they did."

https://www.silverscreenandroll.com/platform/amp/2010/7/10/1563020/silver-screen-and-roll-hits-the

Print publication The Week referencing Bloody Elbow https://www.theweek.co.uk/ufc/100417/conor-mcgregor-retires-how-ufc-mma-fans-reacted-twitter-dana-white

A Bloody Elbow piece featured in the book 'Best Canadian Sportswriting' https://books.google.ca/books?id=y2a1DgAAQBAJ&pg=PT298&lpg=PT298&dq=%22sb+nation%22+%22bloody+elbow%22+-bloodyelbow.com&source=bl&ots=TXhcTrwN0T&sig=ACfU3U0SJnNnNs1WVLtVv3ErXh4S83o8VQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiSg-TjquL6AhXKDEQIHc4FBD04KBDoAXoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22sb%20nation%22%20%22bloody%20elbow%22%20-bloodyelbow.com&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:3C01:FA00:AD5B:D5F9:436D:1AB6 (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of those nominations at the World MMA Awards shouldn't be understated, either. It's the major awards show for the sport and is also televised

https://mmajunkie.usatoday.com/2020/12/reminder-12th-annual-world-mma-awards-air-tonight-on-cbs-sports-network — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:3C01:FA00:AD5B:D5F9:436D:1AB6 (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In my humble opinion, the article in its' current form passes WP:SIGCOV with decent sources. Bloody Elbow clearly emphasizes the quality in-depth articles instead of run-of-the-mill bout announcements and reports some other MMA outlets are known for. Ticelon (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting and noting that the nomination has been withdrawn by the AFD nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 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. Deletes ground their arguments in policy which make them more persuasive than the keeps. I would have liked to see a source analysis, but there did no seem to be any interest and another round of relisting did not seem like it would result in any changes. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terracon[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Article stood up on PRNewswire, company announcements, routine trade coverage. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, United States of America, and Kansas. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Prominent company with a well sourced article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article does make use of the above mentioned secondary source however, not exclusively. The article does not use the subject's self-published articles or announcements. Although, the point that the article should be improved is well made. Endercase (talk) 02:08, 21 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!} 19:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all GNews shows are PR press releases, Mr X gets job, etc. There are a few mentions of a company with the same name getting sued in Winnipeg over construction issues, unsure if it's the same company. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - "The company has consistently placed in the top 25 design firms by Engineering News-Record". --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - First of all, as a primary contributor to this article I'll accept the consensus once it has been arrived at. The article is, in my amateur opinion, currently better sourced than the fairly long-standing articles that I based the formatting off of (due to their similar nature):Judy Company, Keller Group Layne Christensen Company, Fugro. There are quite a few additional sources as well as the ones currently linked in the article that I have linked in userspace draft mentioned on the talk page. It is possible that the article was moved out of userspace too early, however I have found the coverage of the company and it's many subsidiaries to be fairly significant in their sector. Although, this wouldn't be the first "less-notable" article I've contributed to and it likely won't be the last; as I do consider myself to be a bit of an inclusionist following Wikipedia:PRESERVE. I will admit that tracking down its many subsidiaries and the corevage thereof is quite tiring and I have taken a bit of break from improving the article myself, however I nor apparently Jax 0677 have abandoned the article. I do not yet see any pressing reason to move the body of the article back into user-space at this time, particularly after review of similar long-standing articles such as the ones linked above. I do understand that the article as it currently stands isn't about to win any quality awards and as stated I will defer to consensus and the result of the admin close. I'm certainly not trying to be a Duck. I do stand by my !Vote. Endercase (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Both the deletion and keep arguments are not convincing without a better source analysis. I suggest that either the nominator or one of the keep or delete voters above takes the time to do a proper source analysis as outlined in the table provided at WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - There are dozens of sources in the user draft. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to WP:PROMOTION. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Where exactly is this promotion of which you speak? I don't see any advertising. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Company fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP as almost all coverage is WP:ROUTINE and/or not independent, e.g. press releases. Both the article and the user space draft reflect this as they contain no real substance, but rather are essentially just lists of the company's executives, awards it has won, and acquisitions/mergers it has performed. I don't agree with the assessment of WP:PROMO but I can see why MrsSnoozyTurtle would argue as such given the content of the article (which, again, is a consequence of the coverage available). Uhai (talk) 23:33, 29 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!} 02:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies[edit]

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

There is nothing to indicate that this is a notable subject. This is an advertisement for the organization. Thenightaway (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added numerous sources from the United Nations and a journal article that help establish notability for this article. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 02:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that you added are all self-sourced: they are published by the subject itself and/or authored by the organization's staff. These do not substantiate notability and they are not the kind of independent sourcing on which we can build an article. Thenightaway (talk) 15:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added more sources, including from a peer reviewed journal, the United Nations, the Australian Council for Educational Research, Harvard, and Columbia. For nonprofits like this you're not going to find a ton of material out there that they haven't been involved with in some way shape or form. Look up some UN programs, they are clearly notable, but there won't be a ton of outside press about them. The rules here are principles, and in cases like this we need to be flexible in how we apply WP:GNG/WP:SNG. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:17, 15 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!} 19:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:ORG just barely; although the article needs to be trimmed of non-independent sources and could use a re-write. There are two sources which establish the INEE passes WP:ORGCRIT. See the source analysis below.4meter4 (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
"About INEE". Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies. Retrieved 2022-10-15.	Y	N	?	N	N	INEE's website. Lacks independence and is a WP:PRIMARY source. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
"Emergency education gains ground". The New Humanitarian. 2008-11-13. Retrieved 2022-10-15.	Y	N	?	?	N	Article is primarily an interview with quoted text by employees of INEE. Lacks independence from the subject, and could potentially be viewed as a primary source. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT
"UNRWA HOSTS THE INTER-AGENCY NETWORK FOR EDUCATION IN EMERGENCIES (INEE) CONFLICT-SENSITIVE EDUCATION TRAINING OF TRAINERS IN AMMAN" (Press release). United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). 2017-08-08. Retrieved 2022-10-15.	Y	N	?	N	N	Press release from the organization. Lacks independence. WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT
Boudreau, Emily (2022-06-21). "Navigating Social-Emotional Learning Globally". Harvard Graduate School of Education. Retrieved 2022-10-15.	?	N	?	Y	N	Interview with EASEL Lab’s researchers who are partners of INEE. Lacks independence from the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
Mendizabal, Enrique; Hearn, Simon (2011). Anderson, Allison; Hodgkin, Marian (eds.). Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies: a community of practice, a catalyst for change. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies Overseas Development Institute (UK). Retrieved 2022-10-13.	Y	N	?	N	N	WP:PRIMARY source published by the INEE. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
Sullivan-Owomoyela, Joan (2006). Inter-Agency Network for education in emergencies minimum standards for education in emergencies, chronic crisis, and early reconstruction: A Uganda case study (PDF). United States Agency for International Development (USAID).	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Government publication. WP:PRIMARY source. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
Tarricone, Pina; Teo, Ian; Mestan, Kemran (2021-11-15). "A new policy tool to help build resilient education systems". Australian Council for Educational Research - ACER. Retrieved 2022-10-15.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Journal publication about a policy tool developed by INEE. There is significant coverage of the policy tool, but no significant coverage of the company itself. Notability is not inherited. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
Levine, Joe (2019-12-23). "The Key to Improving Refugee Education?". Teachers College - Columbia University. Retrieved 2022-10-15.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Article is about the Global Refugee Forum, not the INEE. While one of the participating panelists was from the INEE, the article provided no in-depth coverage of INEE. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
"INEE Minimum Standards \| INEE".}	Y	N	Y	N	N	INEE website; lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
Moriarty, Kate (2020). "Collective impacts on a global education emergency: The power of network response". Prospects. 49 (1–2): 81–85. doi:10.1007/s11125-020-09483-0. ISSN 0033-1538. PMC 7328285. PMID 32836426.	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	This is an excellent source which addresses the organization directly and in-detail with independent analysis. Passes WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
Anderson, Allison; Mendenhall, Mary (2006). "Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies" (PDF). Forced Migration Review. Oxford, United Kingdom: United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund and the University of Oxford. Retrieved 2022-10-13.	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Another excellent source which addresses the organization directly and in-detail with independent analysis. Passes WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
A common platform for education in emergencies and protracted crises Evidence paper (PDF). London, United Kingdom: Overseas Development Institute. 2016. Retrieved 2022-10-13.	Y	Y	?	?	N	Self published by a think tank. The editorial oversight is questionable. Should probably be viewed as a WP:PRIMARY source. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
Burde, Dana; Lahmann, Heddy (2020). "Editorial Note" (PDF). Journal of Education in Emergencies. 8 (1): 5–12. ISSN 2518-6833.	N	N	Y	N	N	Journal published by the INEE. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV/WP:ORGCRIT.
Total qualifying sources					2	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Policy based input shows why this cannot be kept. Star Mississippi 02:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Casali[edit]

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

Italian artistic gymnast and an impressively put together article but sadly he does not pass the stringent standards of WP:NGYMNAST - which tells us he would have had to have won individual gold or individual medial to be presumed as notable. As he fails WP:GNG and there is not sustained significant coverage in secondary sources, I'm afraid deletion is appropriate. Likely WP:TOOSOON... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Vietnam, and Italy. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion for an athlete a medal in a Continenental Championship it's ok for wiki. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Part of medal winning teams at major international competitions (2022 Euros (senior) and 2019 Junior Worlds), won an individual medal at a senior elite international competition (2022 Stuttgart Cup) --Mypurplelightsaber (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Both the nominator and !voters should note that WP:NSPORTS, which WP:NGYMNAST is part of, clearly states that all subjects must be shown to pass WP:GNG when taken to AfD. There is no automatic notability from any achievements, wins or medals. Any merit based !votes should be ignored by the closing admin. Alvaldi (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a medalist at multiple major international competitions. Even if not a pass by the letter of WP:GNG as the article currently stands, this is a case where WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IAR need to be used. Frank Anchor 13:22, 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!} 19:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lovely to see that some keep voters feel the article is "okay for wiki" however the only reference to policy in arguing for keep is IAR and COMMONSENSE. There is no policy based rationale rebutting nominators argument for deletion. In absence of evidence the subject meets notability guidelines deletion is appropriate. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGYMNAST. LibStar (talk) 02:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only source I could find with significant coverage is the Osimo e Dintorni article, so fails WP:GNG and WP:NGYMNAST. OliveYouBean (talk) 12:21, 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!} 08:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Musicube[edit]

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

This is linked from the bottom of the BBC Radio 1 article. There are no references other than a defunct "official website" and a search for reliable sources (including in the archives of Broadcast (magazine)) reveals no relevant results. Flip Format (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, Internet, Websites, and United Kingdom. Flip Format (talk) 11:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this was a newer article, I would suggest DRAFTIFY, but this crappy article has been around for a looooong time (2006). There appears to be coverage out there, but someone would have to agree to add the sourcing.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:26, 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!} 19:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears like an out-dated software product, I see nothing for RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seeing that it's off line and I can't find anything of value about it easily or it's history I can't support keeping this. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:17, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pontevedra Viva[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. It does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. MarioGom (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, and Spain. MarioGom (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MarioGom. As it is not easy to find other secondary or tertiary sources for a regional newspaper apart from the two already cited in the references, couldn't the article be converted into a stub so that it is not deleted as happens in the Wikipedia articles of other Galician newspapers such as El Diario de Ferrol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Diario_de_Ferrol, Atlántico Diario https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atl%C3%A1ntico_Diario or Galicia Hoxe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galicia_Hoxe that hardly or not cite sources?

Best regards, MJSB73MP (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a reasonable amount of coverage for a newspaper with 200k readers. Given newspapers don't commonly write long and detailed articles about other newspapers, I'm not sure what else anyone could expect to see. I can't really see a problem with this (unless the information is completely fake) so I'd say keep as it is. JMWt (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I think this barely crosses the threshhold. The tipping point from me was the coverage in New Advances in Information Systems and Technologies: Volume 2.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:18, 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!} 19:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage just scrapes in to meet notability thresholds. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:59, 29 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kool Corner, Arizona[edit]

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

As best I can tell, Kool Corner was the store and nothing else. The ruins of it are still there, but I can't find any evidence of a settlement here. Mangoe (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Skynxnex (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.~Pog ing Juan 12:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what I can find suggests that this was just a store. Fails WP:GEOLAND as not a community and the coverage existing isn't enough for the WP:NCORP hurdle. Hog Farm _Talk 16:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources show that this was just a store. –dlthewave ☎ 18:21, 29 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 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Frank Casino. (non-admin closure) shelovesneo (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Frank Casino[edit]

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

Without noticing, there has been an article titled Frank Casino in the mainspace which dims the draft as inadequate and therefore has to be deleted. shelovesneo (talk) 18:57, 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. I'd offer to Draftify fhis so that it could go through AFC but it looks like this route has already been attempted. Until this artist receives more significant coverage (or you can locate it) it looks like they will not have a Wikipedia article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Van Snyder (DJ)[edit]

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

Contested PROD; original reasoning was: Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Article has been WP:REFBOMBED without any significant coverage.. After a WP:BEFORE, reasoning still holds. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Austria. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page has already been reviewed. Also I think you got a personal probleme with Van Snyder @JalenFolf because you are always declining and deleting everything that has to do with him, even if the sources and references are reliable and true xD. Probably you would even consider him for deletion if he had 100M followers and billboard no 1 charting hits. what else you want?? I really think you got a personal issue with this topic, since in your profile stands that you are Fan of Monstercat and amember of WikiProject Electronic Music. I see clearly that you got something against him, your decisions what you do are not objective. I can also just copy and paste my reason for keeping article:

Van Snyder (DJ) should be kept.

@MaxnaCarta @JalenFolf

The reasons for this:

.) approved Wikipedia article in other language does exist

.) is artist of renowned record labels as the major label Warner Music Denmark

.) Google Knowledge Panel includes actually signed record labels as the major label Warner Music Denmark

.) many collaborations and remixes with renowned artists all over the world such as Akon, Flo Rida, Lil Wayne ft. T-Pain, Bonnie Tyler, Headhunterz, Klaas, Michael Mind Project, Plastik Funk etc..

.) coverage in the biggest EDM magazines in the world like WeRaveYou, EDMHouseNetwork

.) big and verified social media presence with millions of followers

.) discogs.com

.) according to 1001tracklists.com and songstats.com he is supported by the biggest and most known DJs in the world, hundrets of the biggest DJs in the world are playing his songs in their radioshows and DJ-Sets across the globe.

.) was played on Tomorrowland 2022, Mainstage

.) coverage in one of Denmarks biggest radiostations DR P3

.) estabilished since 2009 in the international EDM scene, you can follow his career back to/since 2009

regarding Wikipedia guidelines of notability more requirements of notability are met like being signed on really renowned and notable record labels such as Warner Music Denmark, Revealed Recordings and Black Hole Recordings. Supported in the biggest EDM News pages worldwide, collaborations with renowned and notable artists exist, chart successes on official beatport Top 100 charts exist too: BeatStats - ARTISTINFO - Van Snyder , played on one of Denmarks biggest radiostations DR P3, an indication that this article/artist is notable and relevant is also (even if not a must) but that article in other Wikipedia language exists. Altogether, a wrong decision to mark this article for deletion. Offcourse the article should be improved and for example discogs and the beatport top 100 charts successes added to references. PS: i will add now discogs and beatport top 100 charts sources to the article --Base-X (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC).[reply][reply]

Also I will contest the deletion request with the reason what I wrote above. --Base-X (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also I feel like you just keep searching and hunting for articles for deletion request xD. thats not like it should be. Really many facts are proven by official sources! --Base-X (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on other Wikipedias does not translate to notability here on the English Wikipedia; our criterias are vastly different from others. Can you provide the other language pages despite this? Jalen Folf (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs isn't a reliable source for wikipedia [1]. We need sources discussing him at length, like a newspaper or magazine article. Something in Bild? Social media followers aren't an indication we can use for wikipedia, as they can easily be falsified. Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--Base-X (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero reliable sources found; what's used for the article is a Google search of his name(!) and brief mentions. I'm not sure where these other "approved articles", nothing links to this page from other language wikis. Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet musical notability. Have not analyzed references because article has been reference-bombed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to User:Base-X - Overly enthusiastic fan editors of entertainment figures are often mistaken for undisclosed paid editors. You appear to be an overly enthusiastic good-faith editor who may be mistaken for a spammer. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

according to WP:NMUSIC musicbrainz.org can be taken as official and reliable source: https://musicbrainz.org/artist/51c9c2ec-12bc-42a5-97b1-674f07a4fec1/recordings Van Snyder on musicbrainz.org - Overview - Recordings i will include this into the references list and remove many references so that the article is no longer anymore WP:REFBOMBED. Also NOTE: that musicbrainz.org link includes official references to the Headhunterz Remix of his Make it Loud and appearances on many real physical CD-Samplers, released by major labels, CD-Samplers like Future Trance and Dream Dance, which are really huge and well known! I will include this all in the article. --Base-X (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

removed many references because article was/is WP:REFBOMBED, added new reliable sources from: musicbrainz.org, wrote a sentence that Van Snyder released on physical CD samplers by major labels like Future Trance and Dream Dance, also listed on musicbrainz.org, I hope now it's bit better :) --Base-X (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

removed google search and further 2x 1001tracklists.com from references, not needed --Base-X (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely no reliable sources and not one that treats the subject in depth. A plethora of sources or track listings does not notability make. Wikipedia is not for promoting people's careers. Fails WP:NMUSICBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Musicbrainz is a user generated site and isn't reliable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:06, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yasin Handuleh Wacays[edit]

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

disputed draftification, Contains WP:OR, eg: leaving the need for a conservative Islamic party and the ~~sprucing~~sourcing, while it may show what it purports to show, is recent enough to require linking. Not ready for mainspace. Optimal solution might be to return to Draft for improvement, but I view that to be unlikely to bear fruit. Over to the community 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Somalia. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any coverage in books under the English or Somali titles. Most of the content seems to be about the party rather than the person. Maybe that is notable? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's not enough here, in either the substance or the sourcing, to establish the permanent notability of a person who doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment- Although the article at a glance gives impression of him being notable but it certainly lacks the coverages/references Surya^beej ^⋠talk⋡ 08:46, 29 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) 18:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

White Mountain Castle Publishing[edit]

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

Not a single one of the references in this entire article mentions White Mountain Castle Publishing, not even trivially. The majority of the content in the article isn't even about the company, it's about the books and the people in them. If those people are notable (and it looks like some are), that content belongs in their articles, not in this one. No sources about the company located on a search. Zero indication that the company is notable in and of itself. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, Christianity, and Hawaii. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nom looks accurate and super-expedited search suggests we ought to go delete. However, I have this trivial reference. If anyone wants to ensure it and the subject are related, perhaps there may be more there, but I doubt it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is. This article is "White Mountain Castle Publishing", based in Hawaii. That one is Arizona-based and lacks the "Castle" in the name. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. To emphasize what the nom indicated, none of the sources cited profiling this publisher's authors even mention the name of this publisher. The reference found by Pbritti mentions (in one sentence) a "White Mountain Publishing" company in Arizona, but does not call it "White Mountain Castle Publishing" which is the name of this company in Hawaii -- it must be a different company. ("White Mountain ..." is a common company name.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Metropolitan90's review. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, and my original PROD. At most it's worth a sentence at Danny Yamashiro, who is the only one intricately tied to the company. Star Mississippi 21:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consideration: Nom might require further work, which I am willing to do. For example, an article from the US Judo Federation [2] mentions the company. Another independent source is also given reference by an institute in Hawaii [3]. These sources may be added to the article. In terms of "White Mountain Castle Publishing," this is the only company I can find with that name. The Kevin Asano article lists the company but does not link to it. I can fix that. As stated, while it may be worth a sentence at Danny Yamashiro, instead of deletion, may I propose rewriting to address the concerns stated? At the least, perhaps a temporary "redirect" or "merge" to Danny Yamashiro may be an alternative, while doing further research and writing? Envinoveritas (talk) 22:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Judo source is a trivial mention in a profile of Kevin Asano. It's not coverage that supports a claim that the company is notable. The Bible Institute thing is an ad for a book published by the company. An ad is never reliable coverage because it's not independent, and again, even if it were, it's still only a trivial mention of the company. All the rewriting in the world isn't going to cover the fact that this company has zero independent significant coverage. Please review the notability guideline for companies so you can see what kind of coverage is necessary. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly convinced that Danny Yamashiro is notable either, so it's probably not worth a mention there.--Jahaza (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- By appearances this is a very minor publisher, whose achievement is producing three editions of the autobio of one man and a bio of another. I wonder if this is not almost a case of self-publishing. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per those above. I also agree with Jahaza that Danny Yamashiro's notability is questionable at best. GPL93 (talk) 13:51, 28 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!} 07:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ruma Sharma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

doesn't pass WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG IndyNotes (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Entertainment. IndyNotes (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Fashion, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: This is close. They've appeared in various shows starting as a child, but none of them seem to be significant roles. The useful sources are interviews or short fluff pieces. I'm not seeing the significant roles for WP:NACTOR or the depth of coverage for WP:GNG. Ravensfire (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The subject appeared in over 300 episodes of TV series Kaisi Yeh Yaariyan, which could be said to meet the second limb of WP:NACTOR—that is, that she has acted prolifically. Even though the sources I am finding aren't brilliant—like this one from the Hindustan Times regarding her modelling in a rice advertisement—I think there is just enough to push her over the line. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep: looks notable enough.~~ 110.224.19.191 (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are mostly unreliable or not independent. Some don't even have WP:SIGCOV. The sources from tellchakkar.com are generally understood to not be reliable. IMDB can't be used to estable notability. The Times of India as per WP:TOI is not really reliable (reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable) and is biased towards pro India articles. The second source is from a blog, so it obviously can't be counted. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 18:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep as per sources she is notable and as well as model cum actress.~~ 223.191.17.213 (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Is yet to have a major role in multiple movies or shows. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

soft delete do not pass WP:NACTOR Whatever role he has done in movies, he did not do lead role and if many such actors work in a movie, then they cannot be all notables.Lionfox0909 (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have struck through two votes from a globally locked LTA editing as IPs. Girth Summit _(blether) 15:44, 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 redirect to List of Athens Tram stops. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agia Triada tram stop[edit]

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

Was deprodded with the rationale, "see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zappio tram stop", which was closed as "no consensus" with minimal participation and the single keep !vote not being based on policy. Not enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trout the nominator. If you read more than the bold closing statement at that AfD you will see that everyone other than the nominator was advocating discussing Athens trams stops as a set with a view to whether most/all should be merged into a list article because it doesn't make sense to just pick one stop at random and nominate it for deletion without regard for it being part of a set where almost all entities almost all have the same level of notability. Yet what the nominator has done here is pick one stop at random and nominate it for deletion without regard for it being part of the exact same set. Even if we were to ignore that (which we have no reason to), there is basically no chance this would be deleted - the viable outcomes are keep, merge or redirect. I'm expressing no opinion whether this individual stop is notable, but it is very clear that the set (Athens tram stops) is notable and so they need to be considered as a set, unless and until that is done it is premature and borderline disruptive to consider them individually. Thryduulf (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That AfD only saw participation by myself (the nominator), the creator of the article, and one other editor who failed to advance a policy-based argument. To claim that is a clear consensus, when the AfD closed as no consensus, is misleading. Due to the habits of a certain few editors which contest any redirections by claiming objectively non-notable train/tram stations are "controversial", it has become necessary to AfD any train station article that doesn't merit a standalone page to gain an affirmative consensus for redirection. This article, and all the tram stops, should be redirected to a list article. I can't help but assume that if all the stops were nominated as a group, the same few editors would cry foul and insist "we must consider each tram stop on its own merits!!!" Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[I]t has become necessary to AfD any train station article that doesn't merit a standalone page to gain an affirmative consensus for redirection. is just false. The reason AfDs of train stations are controversial is because people keep nominating them for deletion when they should be proposing a merge. AfD is for nominating articles for deletion, and there is a widespread consensus (affirmed time after time after time) that these articles should be merged and redirected if they aren't individually notable. And that was the conclusion of the last AfD, and will almost certainly be the conclusion of this AfD too. If time wasn't being wasted on discussions like this then there would be more merges happening with a lot less acrimony. Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I don't disagree with you, it is just that there was nowhere to merge/redirect these articles to. Now there is. Might I suggest you take a look? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[4] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinana railway station This was pointless bureaucracy and proves my point. The user who contested couldn't even be bothered to contribute to the AfD they forced to be created. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Yes, as a set, the tram stops may be notable, but not individually. They should all be on one page. In similar logic, a music album is notable as a set of songs, but most of the songs separately are not notable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In which case the articles should be merged not deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, no, what the nominator has done is nominate a newly created stub article which was created by the very same editor who promised to create a list article that all these stub articles would point to. And instead of creating that article, they are continuing to create these stubs. And again, the above keep !vote has no basis in policy.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't "promise to create a list article", they suggested it would be something useful to create. My keep vote is perfectly in accordance with policy. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the other AfD, "A draft of an article that I plan to have all standalone Athens Tram stops merge into is available at User:Minoa/sandbox/Tram." So I should have used "plan" instead of "promise".Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not create any more Tram articles since the Zappio tram stop deletion discussion (25 September 2022):
- Agia Triada tram stop tram stop, last touched by me on 22 September (except to temporarily deprod 22 October 2022‎ until I finished the replacement).
- Asklepieio Voulas tram stop, last touched by me on 22 September.
- Baknana tram stop, 21 September
- Kasomouli tram stop, 21 September
- Kolymvitirio tram stop, 22 September
- Leoforos Vouliagmenis tram stop, 22 September
- Pikrodafni tram stop, 22 September
- Zappio tram stop, 23 September
What you said is not good practice according to WP:DNTL, and risks hurting this nomination. It will also not make me move faster on the replacement article, in fact, it may slow it down further. --Minoa (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're right, I mispoke, you did not create, but you did de-prod knowing that this was a non-notable article, and quoted the prior AfD where you "planned" to create the list article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the tram stop is not notable, it's a place where the tram stops. There is no station building there. No sources found, nothing for GNG. We would generally only keep railway or tram stations that have some sort of notable infrastructure at the location; this is just a "place", basically a pin on a map. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the set of Athens trams stops is notable as a set, so why would you not at least merge and redirect into a broader article? Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what you can merge, it tells you what's the north and south of it and when it opened. Oaktree b (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which can and should all be merged into a list article if this is not individually notable. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment okay, I created the list page, List of Athens Tram stops, and included all cited information from the above non-notable (and in some cases, wholly uncited) stubs. Redirect there.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Train stations, bus terminals, and airports are typically notable, but not transit stops. This is just where a tram stops, there is no building or transfer station to another mode of transit or significant history regarding it. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athens Tram or List of Athens Tram stops, though I think the latter could be merged to the former. Without station infrastructure, a mere stop is not notable. Reywas92^Talk 23:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Athens Tram stops: Areas that might not be notable on a designated road are sometimes mentioned so I suppose it is not far-fetched, and it would be somewhat silly to ignore listing a stop on a route like it didn't exist, I would think. It is far better to have a list of all stops than to have individual articles that include non-notable stops. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Athens Tram stops, although I feel unimpressed by the disorganised nature of the AfD. The reason for me suspending the PROD was that I would like a smooth transition to a list with some effort put in, akin to List of Blackpool Tramway tram stops and out of respect for WP:CIR: it should not imply that I would oppose redirecting after the article was created. It does take time for me to get the coordinates, as well as getting the formatting right, and I do not always have free time. The point I am making here is that patience is greatly appreciated: I think it only becomes urgent in cases such as breaches of BLP policy or an ongoing war. --Minoa (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Thanks to Onel5969 for creating a more suitable location for this text. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Athens Tram stops seems like the most sensible thing to do, this tram stop isn't notable on it's own. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:38, 29 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 per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion relative to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not present. For example, per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article, or whether or not they "work". An article being in an orphaned state is also not a valid rationale for deletion. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AutoTempest[edit]

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

Since this article is orphaned and the references do not work, it seems this article does not show general notability. Given this, I am proposing to have this article deleted. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not sure what the nom is referring to when they say the "references do not work". All but 1 worked fine for me. That being said, most are just primary or listings. However, 2 (WiseBread and Hooniverse) are two in-depth sources about it, so that would suffice for some editors. For others, there appears enough other sourcing online to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:00, 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!} 08:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rajko Dodic[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a former mayor, not reliably sourced as the subject of sufficient coverage to pass WP:NPOL #2. Full disclosure, I was the original creator of this, back in 2010 when the notability standard for mayors was an automatic "inherent" notability freebie for any mayor of any city whose population surpassed 50,000 -- but that's long since been deprecated, and the inclusion test for a mayor now hinges on how much substance can actually be written and sourced about his mayoralty: specific things he did as mayor, specific projects he spearheaded as mayor, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But in 12 years, absolutely nothing of substance has been added to expand the article from the initial stub at all, and even on a deep database search for at-the-time coverage that wouldn't google well, I mostly just get glancing namechecks of his existence as a provider of soundbite in coverage of other things rather than substantive or notability-building analysis about his mayoralty -- the strongest source I can find about him was covering him in the context of coming up on stage to play a little bit of guitar when Hollerado played a concert in his city, which is of no enduring significance. I simply haven't been able to find enough coverage to get him back up to the standard that mayors now have to meet, so he can't be exempted from the standards that apply in 2022 just because "mayor who exists" was good enough for the standards that applied in 2010. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 17:57, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Araújo (footballer, born 1992)[edit]

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

Article on former footballer with very brief career and no apparent significant coverage. Closest I can find is Mundo Dos Guarda-Redes, which is not enough. Can't find evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORT.4meter4 (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 03:16, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi McLeary[edit]

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

I couldn't find any significant coverage so she fails GNG Dougal18 (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's WP:TOOSOON. She is 16 years old and a recent academy graduate, as explained in this August 2022 BBC Sport article (which I would characterise as a "mention"). She has had some exciting moments in her short career and will no doubt go on to do brilliant things, but this article could easily be recreated at that point, also once there is SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources to back it up. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTSBASIC. Clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON.4meter4 (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree TOOSOON. Oaktree b (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At the moment this is a clear case of TOOSOON, but she could very well merit an article in the future as her career progresses. Dunarc (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - plenty of coverage on the Rangers website but this is not independent and fails WP:SPORTBASIC, which says team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Aside from the BBC mention above, I also found a passing mention in The Scotsman. We need something more detailed to show GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear case of WP:TOOSOON. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Stuff like this suggests she may have a career that generates WP:SIRS coverage, but I can't find any of it yet. Jogurney (talk) 17:39, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eilidh Austin[edit]

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

She fails GNG due to a lack of significant coverage on her. Dougal18 (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTSBASIC.4meter4 (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found Daily Record, which contains some brief info on her. There is also this local interest story from the same paper. Has anyone found anything else? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:30, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two from the Vault (series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM DonaldD23 talk to me 14:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding any reliable RS; although many blogs and other self published sources do discuss this series. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the requirements of WP:NALBUM. Dan arndt (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the individual albums are notable, but they all have their own articles anyway, and this series of budget re-releases is not itself notable. Richard3120 (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Works best as a category IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 05:12, 29 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!} 08:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Monticone[edit]

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

Italian army officer, was involved briefly in an affair with a lady by the name of Donatella Di Rosa who made unfounded accusations of a planned coup d'état, leading to getting him sacked and also her husband a Colonel. And that's your lot - absolutely clear, textbook case of WP:ONEEVENT and other than this, the good General Franco is notable for nothing other than a sound military life well - and quietly - lived. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Italy. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the contrary, passes WP:GNG. A lieutenant-general is hardly just notable for one event. Most have sufficient coverage for notability. And he does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Initially, it looked like there was enough coverage to pass GNG, but on diving in, this is a case of WP:BIO1E. Like Necrothesp, I feel that folks that reach general ranks usually have enough in-depth coverage to pass GNG (that was one of the aspects of NSOLDIER I strongly agreed with), but in this case I could not find any.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:BLP1E.4meter4 (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and 4meter4. In fact it does not appear the "Lady Golpe affair" received anything of notice. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC, supposedly notable for the "Lady Golpe affair" which doesn't have a page. Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Unless there is something else notable on his Italian page. --Suitskvarts (talk) 17:47, 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. The argument to draftify is weak if nobody intends to work on the draft, and nobody has expressed such an intention here. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Martin (footballer, born 2002)[edit]

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

Article currently doesn't pass WP:NSPORT guidelines. Also has a draft version that was copied and pasted into main-space for similar notability reasons. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 13:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the mainspace article and userfy the draft article to Tombury89 (the original author of the draft). It is extremely unlikely that the subject will meet WP:GNG in the near-enough future to be allowed to remain at WP:AFC. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - not yet notable. Giant Snowman 19:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mainspace article, leave the draft article in draft space. Clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON but possible that there will be WP:SIGCOV in the not-too-distant future. Frank Anchor 15:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:51, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Garrett[edit]

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

Article currently doesn't pass WP:NSPORT guidelines. Also has a draft version that was copied and pasted into main-space for similar notability reasons. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 13:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the mainspace article and userfy the draft article to Tombury89 (the original author of the draft). It is extremely unlikely that the subject will meet WP:GNG in the near-enough future to be allowed to remain at WP:AFC. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - not yet notable. Giant Snowman 19:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage is significant IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Apart from a couple of hyperlocal articles in the Lancashire Telegraph and some pre-signing buzz in dedicated football media, I couldn't find anything on the subject beyond stats. JoelleJay (talk) 03:43, 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 Procedural close. Wrong venue, Redirects are only deleted at WP:RFD (non-admin closure) MB 17:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lettuce[edit]

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

No clear evidence that "the lettuce" refers to the Daily Star lettuce as a primary topic. The reason the PROD was removed - that most Google searches for "the lettuce" bring up this particular lettuce - is a clear example of recentism. Most searches for "lettuce" bring this event up for me; should we go ahead and make Lettuce a disambiguation page? QueenofBithynia (talk) 13:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Close wrong venue, should be taken to WP:RfD instead Justi yaya 15:28, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biagio Gramaticopolo[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. No reliable independent coverage of the player, only results and passing coverage. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep doesn't meet WP:NTENNIS but does meet WP:GNG he has articles with Significant coverage even though he isn't the main topic of those articles with the main topic being him (almost) winning tournaments. These sources are also reliable and the same sources have been used in other wikipedia pages with no issues. The rest of GNG is clearly met i belive. I hope this cleared up any questions you had. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikieboy1 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. I am trying to type without laughing. I hadn't considered that someone would advocate notability based on the "lowest ranked person on the ATP singles ranking." or on "(almost) winning tournaments." Losing is bad but almost winning is notable. Learn something every day. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:22, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Care (British charity)[edit]

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

No non-primary sources or indication of notability. Basically promotional. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability and United Kingdom. PepperBeast (talk) 12:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prob Delete - it seems to have changed names to Ambient Support but there are no GNG sources I can find about either name. JMWt (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - Fails WP:GNG. Btw removal of this page (under a different name) was already proposed in 2012, but there was no consensus then due to a lack of comments. --Suitskvarts (talk) 08:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:44, 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 keep. A Weak Keep but Keep it is. There is already an article at Ante Pavlović and it's arguable whether or not this Ante Pavlović should be moved to that title in its place. I'll leave the Move decision to a discussion that can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following of Ante Pavlović[edit]

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

Now this, I promise you, is interesting. Ante Pavlović was a self-proclaimed 'chiropractor' and sometime psychiatric patient, whose unpleasant erratic, extreme, violent and anti-social behaviour got him some passing notoriety in the more lurid Croatian press - including TV shows and even appears to have gained him some sort of following. So we have coverage and some degree of notoriety, but we're hardly Charles Manson and more of a public nuisance. Outside of Croatia and the complaints of his long-suffering neighbours, he is unknown. Do we need a page about the 'Following of Ante Pavlović'? The fact of that following is not the focus of the media and is not in itself notable other than a passing commentary on human culpability. So I would argue that no, we do not need this article and so this would duly be deleted. We might argue about a short biography being appropriate, but this is not that article. We could move the page title to Ante Pavlović but then this would all have to be rewritten to be biographical and it leaves me with the question - does a psychiatrically unbalanced man whose only media attention is for complaints about his awful behaviour in a foreign country merit an article in the English Wikipedia? Even if it DOES, technically, pass WP:GNG. Over to you, good people. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Psychiatry, and Croatia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Move and reorganize How on earth did you find this? After reading comments below, I've changed my !vote from delete to move. As long as he wasn't just a local nuisance, he deserves (reluctantly) a page. The paragraph on "The Following" should be at the end of the article, and the title should be something like: Ante Pavlović (cult leader)".— rsjaffe 🗣️ 11:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC), edited 17:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Patrol! It's a route to many wonderous things! :P Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without going knee-deep into non-English sources, I'm at this stage making a judgment based on the page and what Alexandermcnabb says above. It sounds like the guy is notable and that there are enough sources to meet the GNG. That said, I'm not sure about the title or the way the content is written - given there appear to have been victims of what appears to have been some kind of cult, maybe we want to be more circumspect about the details. So I think I'm a very weak keep but stubify (if that's a word) the page to remove the tabloidy details. I won't be crying if I lose this !vote JMWt (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add @Alexandermcnabb:, please don't take this the wrong way, but I wonder if you might think a little bit more carefully about the language you use: we here are an English language encyclopedia. It is very possible that we have Croatian colleagues who work to improve en.wiki in English who are no more foreign than anyone else. There is no more or less notability in something that happens in Croatia simply based on location than if it happened wherever you live. JMWt (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My intention is certainly not to belittle anyone - but a local event, or series of events, covered entirely in Croatian language media and with no impact other than purely locally within Croatia, strike me as being of arguable relevance to Enwiki. That was my only point - and certainly your thoughtful comment is in no way taken in the wrong way! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The general notability guideline explicitly states, Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. (Original emphasis.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that Croatian sources are invalid, I'm arguing that the brief and misguided following of an unpleasant local nuisance is not notable and that, additionally, we may consider the nuisance itself to not be notable, even though technically there are secondary local sources to meet GNG. Or do we cover every violent, sadistic thug that made local news anywhere in the world? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To me, "purely locally" refers to a region the size of a city or slightly larger. If he's notorious within Croatia, I wouldn't call that local. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move. The article title is inappropriate, as it is mostly about Ante Pavlović himself rather than his "following". However, I'm not sure what the proper qualifier for him would be as it is unclear whether he was legitimately a chiropractor, and terms such as "healer" and "cult leader" would be non-neutral in opposite ways. Therefore, move Ante Pavlović to Ante Pavlović (footballer), and then move Following of Ante Pavlović to Ante Pavlović. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have to object to this last part - this Ante Pavlović isn't the primary topic for his name, as it's a reasonably generic and common Croatian name, and it would be a fair bit bizarre if we short-circuited navigation towards this peculiar one. Indeed on the Croatian Wikipedia there's actually eponymous articles on two completely different people that would not be unlikely to get translated into English at some point, too, so that's already 4 known eponymous notable people. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to the possibility of a different move, as long as we can find a neutral qualifier for his name. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow time to reach consensus, which is pretty evenly split at the moment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but rename. I'd expect this to be a fork from an Ante Pavlovic article... It seems well sourced, unsure how many of them are RS, but I'd give it a pass.Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will offer Weak keep but rename that might need reorganizing. @Alexandermcnabb:, This one is a little better than the one where notability is supposedly evident because the "subject" "almost won" and in 2022 was "the lowest ranked person on the ATP singles ranking." -- Otr500 (talk) 03:40, 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 delete. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fatjon Bytyçi[edit]

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

I can only find stats databases, no significant news coverage. His professional career was very brief. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC, the latter guideline states [sports] biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to fail WP:ATHLETE. --Suitskvarts (talk) 18:03, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pacification theory[edit]

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

This is not a notable subject. It's a framework or term associated with the work of a small handful of people who appear to have primarily published on this in low-tier academic publications and radical outlets. The article appears to have been created by someone whose edits are singularly focused on promoting one of these people, George S. Rigakos. There's nothing to indicate that it has broader significance. Thenightaway (talk) 10:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - while it is not a big theory, it is not a redundant article and enough sources exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsae Comp (talk • contribs) 10:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Politics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:BEFORE reveals various non-notable attempts to coin this term, each with different meanings. This attempt is entirely WP:PRIMARY sourced. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:59, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom and SailingInABathTub. We are not in the business of promoting neologisms. The intended subject might be understandable to someone studying Sociological theories. It seems more of a textbook or journal but is complicated for any layperson. Three strata of pacification, the last has three processes, and we can call it the "General Theory of Pacification". -- Otr500 (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend if everyone is for deletion to merge it rather, or at least parts of it to an article like Police state, or Police action, or even a new article that more broadly collects the different uses of Pacification (at the moment a disambiguation page). PS: shouldnt this be first at least raised at the articles talk page? I added one Talk:Pacification theory#Pacification; you are welcome. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it even meets WP:DUE for inclusion on those pages. These are very peripheral sources. Thenightaway (talk) 20:32, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J.Smallz[edit]

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

Subject is not notable. Sources cited on the article are not about him but musicians he may have worked with, this includes the awards and nominations mention at the end of the article. SPAECC (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and South Africa. SPAECC (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most mentions are trivial, sources are scant about this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, So I'll make sure to have a newspaper reporting in 2022 of the irregularity and his works as an audio engineer. Mr Mabena (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit source]

Shortcut

WP:NMUSICOTHER
Composers and performers outside mass media traditions may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:
- Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture.
- Has composed a number of notable melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable music genre.
Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching for a particular music genre.

>> https://www.iol.co.za/entertainment/music/j-smallz-is-doing-big-things-2001036

But i am noting there aren't much guidelines for audio engineers on the wikipedia notability list. Mr Mabena (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good day,

Let me leave the breadcrumbs of evidence right here for you:

J.Smallz in studio at Ambitiouz Entertainment as an audio engineer

>> [1]https://www.instagram.com/p/CY3X6FKMLKY/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

As noted on Wikipedia, you cant reference instagram page posts as evidence of works or notablility, but it does provide clear evidence that J.Smallz works in Ambitiouz Entertainment as an audio engineer. Which is the main notable action sited in his wikipedia intro.

He is also nominated in the category of Best Engineered album of the Year for Kid Tini album The Second Coming alongside Tweezy, the wikipage discography you created should mention this.

Now for the notability section you require:

[2]https://www.instagram.com/p/CP5WuyrsWPB/

This is the images taken by Ambitiouz Entertainment of the nomination party alongside fellow SAMA 27 nominees, Intaba Yase Dubai, Blaq Diamond, Miss Pru and others.

Here comes the issue (included with the deletion of James Smals redirect that was in the wikipedia page but got deleted):

RISA (SAMA 27) misspelt the names of two engineers nominated; namely J.Smallz and Trayce, instead writing - James Smals and Ron Epidemic.

evidence >> [3]https://www.instagram.com/p/CPTNLoGMxED/

Proven here by what they stated on their own wikipedia page:

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/27th_South_African_Music_Awards

The award was won by: Zoë Modiga – Papi Diretsi & Songo Oyama

Do you still think J.Smallz wikipedia page deserves to be deleted, since he is a SAMA 27 nominee for Best Engineer of the Year? Mr Mabena (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable musician. Doesn’t meet any of the NMUSIC criteria. -Xclusivzik (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The idea to create a J.Smallz wikipedia page is not to promote his music, but rather to promote his works as an AUDIO ENGINEER.

Would the content presented need to change to highlight the audio engineer aspect more? instead of highlighting the songs and albums that i contributed to as an audio engineer? Cause i think that may be the issue here. Cause he hasn't been awarded awards for being a vocalist at all, rather his awards and accolades all come from being an Audio Engineer working with popular artists in South Africa and abroad. Mr Mabena (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award."

J.Smallz has been nominated for a SAMA award alongside Tweezy, Kitie, Trayce. Would he need to go to a newspaper to report this account even though he is nominated as stated in the discussion with SPAECC... Mr Mabena (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn’t seem to meet notability criteria.Park3r (talk) 09:44, 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!} 08:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar Bilal[edit]

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

Semi-pro footballer with no apparent significant coverage in Arabic or English. I found his Soccerway profile, which has no indication of notability or professional appearances. I found a single passing mention in TimeKora and Hasanews, which is an extremely basic transfer announcement with no useful information about Ammar Bilal. Does not look to pass WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC and might have even failed under the old WP:NFOOTBALL guideline. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft Delete - does not pass WP:GNG with the sources provided. JojoMN1987 (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

soft Delete - no any sources news links, no evidence of notability. Do not pass WP:GNG.Lionfox0909 (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 03:19, 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!} 08:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Pipeline[edit]

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

Obviously will never be built as Iran cannot export to Europe because of sanctions - if sanctions were ever lifted it would still not be built as EU is decarbonizing Chidgk1 (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Ludicrous nomination based solely on a fractured WP:CRYSTAL. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, it seems that an article not updated since 2009 on a planned project would be a bad sign, as it often is. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing mentions in op-eds from earlier this year in [5] and [6] describe the project as having failed after the imposition of sanctions by the EU, with no other nontrivial significant coverage found in Google News, at least in English; [7] from 2009 deotes just two sentences to this topic. All functional sources in the article are from around the week of announcement 2008, except for one that mentions it in passing [8]. It is possible that sources exist in Persian, but I am unable to check myself. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Europe, and Turkey. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:08, 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. After almost a month on AFD there does not seem to be any prospect that another relist will get us closer to consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Lapierre (civil servant)[edit]

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

Non-notable French civil servant. Subject fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NPOL. Of the two sources cited in the article, neither provides significant independent coverage of the subject. The Who's Who entry is misleading. It is not a biographical entry on closer examination. The French language text is primarily about the celebrations of the 20th Anniversary of INPI and not about Lapierre who is only mentioned briefly. Further, it reads like a press release and has no contributing author; which makes me doubt the independence of this source. The other is a publication of the INPI; of which Lapierre is the director. It also lacks independence from the subject. 4meter4 (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are a few interviews with the subject regarding his then-role at INPI and passing mentions relative to that role, but I don't regard that organisational role as inherently notable, nor see evidence of attained biographical notability beyond that role. He is mentioned at the National Institute of Industrial Property (France) article in a list (which I have refreshed for subsequent appointees), which could be an ATD redirect target, though the article's bracketed naming makes it an unlikely search term. AllyD (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Tentative keep. I have just added a few references, among which one from Le Figaro and another one from Les Echos. I think both newspapers can be qualified as reliable and independent of the subject. --Edcolins (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Edcolins I have to disagree. The first article from Le Figaro is a routine announcement of an appointment and doesn't really substantiate anything significant other than he got a job. The second is an interview of Lapierre in Les Echos. As an interview it is directlty connected to the subject and lacks independence. So neither of these would count towards WP:SIGCOV for notability purposes; although they certainly could be used as sources if the article remains. Best.4meter4 (talk)

Thanks 4meter4. I don't know whether the article titled "Yves Lapierre à la direction générale de l'INPI" from Le Figaro is a routine announcement, as you wrote. 85 % of the article is behind a paywall. Have you been able to read the remaining 85 % of the article? If so, can you share it? Regarding the article titled "Yves Lapierre Un « manager du défi » à la tête de l'Inpi" from Les Echos, you write that this is an interview, although it is presented as a "portrait", which is basically a detailed "description" of a person. To me, the article from Les Echos is clearly more than an interview. --Edcolins (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it's illegal to share content behind pay walls which are protected by copyright from unauthorized distribution. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the issue of independence with the second source. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit confused. Were you able to read the content behind the pay wall? Edcolins (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why would he not pass NPOL? He was the head of a national government agency and thus held national-level office. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Presidentman Incorrect. The INPI is one of many departments inside the Ministry of Economics and Finance (France). Therefore, the head of the agency is the Minister of Economics and Finance who oversees all of the departments and the leaders of each individual department. Being a departmental director over one department inside a large government agency doesn't pass NPOL. 4meter4 (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you for clarifying. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Presidentman and 4meter4. The INPI is basically the French Patent and Trademark Office. Thus, it is as important in France as the USPTO in the U.S. I doubt that anybody would say that heading the USPTO is insufficient under WP:NPOL. I think the argument can be made, under WP:BIAS, that the same should apply to the French Patent and Trademark Office. In summary, he held for six years the position of head of the French Patent Office, which is clearly a national office per WP:NPOL. [edited] --Edcolins (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Edcolins Thanks for comments. Would you mind separating out your vote into a standard format instead of burying it an indented discussion. This helps visually for the closer, and also for later participants in this thread. On a side note, I can't find a single article on a head of the USPTO (except Kathi Vidal who has a more significant role as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property) on wikipedia; whose leaders aren't even mentioned in that article. If you are making a cross-comparison it would be helpful to demonstrate we have similar coverage of Americans in that role to bolster your somewhat novel interpretation of NPOL. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I have just moved the "Keep" mention, or more precisely the "Tentative keep", to the "right" place. --Edcolins (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update, I just found List of people who have headed the United States Patent Office. Which I do think is somewhat parallel post. I will give this argument some more thought. I do note that many of the people in that list were notable for other things already, or after they held that post (including some US Presidents). So its a little difficult to say whether the role itself is notable, or if we have articles because many of the people in this role did other things that made them notable. 4meter4 (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 4meter4. The recent heads of the USPTO, i.e. Kathi Vidal, Andrei Iancu, Michelle K. Lee, Teresa Stanek Rea, John J. Doll, and Jon Dudas, appear to be notable mainly (or, for some, exclusively) because they headed the USPTO. Edcolins (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... I am actually considering whether or not to take some of these to AFD. The Vidal article for example is largely sourced to non-independent sources (i.e. the US Government), and routine post announcements. If we had secondary sources covering their actual work in the role after they got the job I would be far more likely to view it as a notable post. But it seems like the only time we ever hear about it is when someone is entering and someone is exiting. This is similar to the issue with Ambassadors of the United States where we have now come to a consensus that the role itself is not inherently notable, and we require more than post announcements and exits for an article.4meter4 (talk) 17:03, 9 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!} 02:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 08:12, 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!} 06:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karunguyil Kundram[edit]

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

Cannot find any third-party sources on this film. Wonder if it even released since I cannot find its release date on database sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Fails verification to establish notability for a film. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:01, 28 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 13:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Innovation Summit for Health[edit]

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

There is nothing to indicate that this is notable. If there is anything worth keeping, it can be merged with Qatar Foundation. Thenightaway (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Qatar. Shellwood (talk) 09:30, 8 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!} 06:59, 15 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!} 05:50, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leader, Colorado[edit]

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

This is another problem case, starting from the impossibility of searching for a word that is apparently as common on web pages as "a" and "the". The material evidence is this: the hall is definitely there, and it definitely says "Leader" on it, and it appears in topos and aerials as far back as I can go. Until the 1950s, though, it's the only building at the corner. Meanwhile, the "Leader School" appears only in one aerial in the 1950s and then disappears again. Maybe newspapers might be more illuminating, but I find no narrative about the place in any source. At best this might be a locale, but for instance there's no confirmation that the hall is named for a place as opposed to a person. Mangoe (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, since we have no reliable source which says the subject is a populated place. The one source cited is not considered reliable for this purpose. Hut 8.5 10:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I thus far am finding plenty of sources for the article, and have expanded it. More work will need to be done, but this was a community which has been around for over 100 years. There appear to be quite a few newspaper articles, but I started with state sources. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The recent additions and improvements establish this as a populated place. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - meets GNG and GEOLAND.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of recent additions to the article to consider.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that it's being expanded. It's already better than it was, and Firsfron sounds like they have more to add. 3mi1y (talk) 06:29, 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 Tacna, Arizona. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noah, Arizona[edit]

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

A searching nightmare, but the maps say this was a rail stop named Tacna before being renamed at some point. Other than that, nothing there. Mangoe (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not entirely sure this place exists as an entity at all. Antelope Union High School (itself questionably notable, at first glance) and a couple of churches are the nearest buildings, but are all considered part of Wellton, Arizona. Redirect per RecycledPixels below. 3mi1y (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tacna, Arizona based on the interesting, and fairly lengthy (for this book) account of the town in the Arizona Place Names (1960), pages 386-387. In brief, what was an old railroad siding out in the middle of nowhere was used by a huckster from Texas to sell a bunch of real estate out in the middle of nowhere. The old railroad siding was called Tacna, the huckster, Max B. Noah, used that name for the town he created out of nothing, and the railroad changed the name of the original siding to Noah. RecycledPixels (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually kind of hilarious. If I read this correctly, the place currently known as Tacna is the town Max B. Noah founded, and the place currently known as Noah (formerly Tacna) is just a railroad siding and nothing else? 3mi1y (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of Noah in the Tacna article. Redirecting is a bad idea under those circumstances. Something needs to be written in there first. SpinningSpark 22:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added a brief History section to Tacna, Arizona, and suggest redirecting to that section specifically. 3mi1y (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per 3mi1y now that something exists in the target. SpinningSpark 09:34, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tacna, Arizona. ~Pog ing Juan 12:47, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Die Männer der Emden[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE.

PROD removed with no improvement DonaldD23 talk to me 04:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Military, and Germany. DonaldD23 talk to me 04:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The German article references several, as it says, "miserable reviews", including full-length reviews from four major German newspapers. I'm not sure there's much to say about it in English other than who was in it and that it wasn't very good, though. Adam Sampson (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A film is a film. If we limited film articles to those that won awards, howwever prestigious, however weak, we wouldn't have that many films in. A German film about a true World War I story and the adventures of its crew would have strong international historical interest.Foofbun (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets GNG, coverage in major German news publications.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the four German newspaper reviews of the film so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:30, 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 delete. ✗plicit 04:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricketers from Queensland[edit]

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

Article has unclear list criteria (whether this is about state of birth or first state represented), seems to fail WP:NLIST, double-up of information already found on other pages, and probably fails WP:NOR. OliveYouBean (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all have essentially the same problems:

Per the apparent consensus at the cricket wikiproject, these are clear deletions for me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Cricket, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are just listcruft, the discussion on the cricket WikiProject has led to a consensus that these aren't needed. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Rugbyfan22: "cruft" is not a reason for deletion (it's an essay not a deletion policy), and the fact a WikiProject may have gained consensus does not mean that there is more widely. Can you please set out a proper reason for deletion? Deus et lex (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Personally not sue they pass WP:NLIST, and has been discussed by editors, I'm not sure there's a need for these when we list by state sides anyway, and there seems to be apparent confusion between the content of these lists also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all all fail WP:NLIST. LibStar (talk) 11:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. I really can't see any need for these when we have lists of international players by country. There are bound to be contradictions because of the inherent from and for syndrome, causing confusion for the readers. BoJó | talk UTC 12:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all to repeat my comments from the discussion at WT:CRIC: "We have lists for cricketers that played for a state's cricket team e.g. List of Queensland first-class cricketers, and those articles seem to be a much worse version/almost duplicate of them. And agree that "cricketers from X" is ambiguous too. " Joseph2302 (talk) 14:14, 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 redirect to The Omen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Thorn[edit]

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

Rehash of plot elements from The Omen. References are unremarkable and character does not meet WP:IPC. AldezD (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. AldezD (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to try and save this - I've removed a lot of content that was just plot rehash from the main article. I've found some promising sourcing, but so far the main barrier I'm hitting is that a lot of this could be summarized in the main article. I've found some good sourcing that focuses on the character, but not a whole lot so far. Much of it tends to cover him in passing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:52, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Omen. Despite a promising start, I just can't seem to find anything that would really justify an article. Ultimately this would rely on reviews from the original and remake where people comment on the actors' performances, which I don't really think is truly enough to justify an article. If someone can find good sourcing I'm definitely open to changing my stance. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Don't see third party sources to support WP:NOTABILITY for this. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:25, 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 no consensus. The letter of NPOL clearly doesn't apply here; this is a policeman, not an elected politician; but as I understand it, the gist of the argument below is that a high-ranking policeman ought to be notable, and for the head of provincial police of a very populous country, that's a strong argument. Arguments against a standalone article are focused on his implication in a killing, and on the letter of NPOL, but none have directly addressed the sources provided, or the idea of notability inherent in such a position. Conversely, while sources have been provided, they have not been evaluated in detail. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdy Sambo[edit]

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

Subject is associated almost exclusively with a single event (WP:ONEEVENT). Any relevant new content, if reliably sourced, should be merged into Killing of Brigadier Nofriansyah Yosua Hutabarat and a Redirect put in place. Paul W (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Paul W (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. I know that "WP:POLITICIAN" is designed to apply to people whose career is politician, but I think it applies well enough to high ranking government officials who are not politicians. This person is high ranking. I do not want the article filled with cruft, and they did come to international prominence for WP:ONEEVENT, but they were nationally relevant before that one event just because of their high rank. If this merge is executed then biographical details about their government rank would be WP:UNDUE in the event article and lost. We keep those kinds of details in biographical articles. I do support anyone trimming content from this article to comply with Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines, as I suspect some content and sources here do not comply.

I expect this issue has arisen before in AfD for non-politician government officials but do not know the precedent or how to find one. The deletion nomination is fair and I may be in error. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment/reply. Sambo is/was not a politician (not elected to his high ranking role). If he was nationally relevant, we would expect citation of reliable sources predating the shooting incident, but the references about him all appear to be from sources dated after the incident, which (to me) underlines he is only notable because of this one event. Paul W (talk) 07:12, 3 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!} 23:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This search for news sources predating the killing gets lots of hits, but most of them are in Indonesian which I unfortunately do not read. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my opinion it's notable enough to cover into separate article, since he was the head of Propam division before murder event. Dede2008 (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Killing of Brigadier Nofriansyah Yosua Hutabarat. Clearly fails WP:BLP1E. No evidence has been produced that his role with the Indonesian National Police passes NPOL; and we have no examples of individuals with similar positions having articles in wikipedia. Without any sigcov of his role with the INP, it's doubtful this is an NPOL pass. 4meter4 (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - 2 examples of "individuals with similar positions having articles in wikipedia." Napoleon Bonaparte (police officer) and Susno Duadji. Both of whom being fired from the National Police due to various controversies and events, just like Sambo. gtgamer79 (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:35, 15 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!} 03:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this BLP as suggested by nominator as an alternative to deletion. I reject assertions WP:NPOL applies in this case, though it's a debatable issue. User:Bluerasberry's reasonable concerns can be satisfied by a merge of best sources and a biographical subsection to the event page. IMHO, the relevant guidance is at WP:PERP and WP:RECENTISM. This living fellow did not have and would not have qualified to have an article about him on English Wikipedia on the day before the killing. This is what his page looked like on Indonesian Wikipedia just before the incident (essentially a quite detailed resumé). An article on the notable event itself exists (which pre-dates this page). ~~Of the sources presented thusfar, virtually all originated after the event.~~ BusterD (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck-through my last assertion, self-trouting for my inaccuracy by User:Phil Bridger's previously offered search link. In any event, I'm going to maintain the merge is the best outcome for this process. BusterD (talk) 02:44, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gitanas[edit]

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

Corresponding article in Spanish only cites one source and I could not find too much significant coverage on the film. Unlike other TV movies like Descendants or Cry Baby Lane, no evident cult following. InvadingInvader (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Mexico. InvadingInvader (talk) 02:49, 8 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!} 02:53, 15 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!} 03:13, 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!} 02:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin E. Bondonno[edit]

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

Not notable 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 02:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 02:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment California Superior Court Judge --Enos733 (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:USCJN, state superior court judges are not inherently notable. Curbon7 (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. State superior court judges aren't "inherently" notable per WP:USCJN, but the sourcing here absolutely isn't cutting it at all in terms of establishing passage of WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few mentions in stories published by the Mercury News and a couple of articles when the subject was appointed. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 21:47, 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!} 02:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ikoku[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly sourced advertisement. A WP:BEFORE shows that it fails GNG. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this was already deleted in 2018 and quickly recreated. I can’t see how this vanity piece passed muster. No claim of notability at all, just a successful businessman who once chaired a tourism board. Mccapra (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly does not meet any notability guideline + Zero significant coverage. Moresdi (talk) 20:56, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Montpellier–Méditerranée Airport#Airlife magazine. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Airlife Magazine[edit]

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

Magazine failed WP:GNG 4 years ago and still fails now. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I see it has 445 likes on Facebook and just over 1000 Insta followers, but that’s about it. Mccapra (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Any argument against restoring the redirect to Montpellier–Méditerranée Airport#Airlife magazine, which had previously been in place since 2018? Seems like the obvious solution to me. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Montpellier–Méditerranée Airport#Airlife magazine which it has been for the past four years. If we don't have any more to say on it than a single sentence giving its publisher and point of distribution then a standalone article is pretty pointless. SpinningSpark 21:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Mccapra (talk) 20:40, 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. ✗plicit 00:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney references in Enchanted[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page does not contribute much encyclopedia value. The vast majority of it is either original research or mere trivia, neither of which should be presented on Wikipedia. The Enchanted article itself already discusses the noteworthy information regarding the references. My initial thought is to Delete the page, but as always, I leave it up to the community. TNstingray (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Frankly, the author of the article would be better to go and add this content to the appropriate TV Tropes article - but not here on Wikipedia. Feels like it falls afoul of WP:PLOT. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- DISCLOSURE: added to my !vote to further flesh out my thoughts. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disney and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 06:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:PLOT is generous. This is essentially one big WP:TRIVIA section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3mi1y (talk • contribs) 07:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- So much WP:OR, the entire article is essentially WP:TRIVIA. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As mentioned in the nom, the main Enchanted (film) article already includes a sourced, prose section discussing the film's ample use of homages. This spinout is nothing but a list of trivia that goes against the manual of style. The majority of the items included are also unsourced, and seem to be largely comprised of WP:OR. Rorshacma (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a big WP:TRIVIA collection. This would be better on the Fandom Wiki for Enchanted. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:03, 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 Crusade (disambiguation)#Comics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crusade (comics)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet GNG, could not find reliable coverage. Coverage may appear in French-language publications that I don't have access to, but I at least didn't see anything in English. And for what it's worth, doesn't appear to meet any of WP:BOOKCRIT either though I'm aware that isn't meant to specifically apply to comics. QuietHere (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Belgium, and France. QuietHere (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was also unable to find any kind of significant coverage, though like the nominator, my searches were largely limited to English language sources. Even if no non-English sources are found, though, it does look like the series is already listed on our articles for Jean Dufaux, Cinebook, and Le Lombard, so it could be used as a Redirect to one of those. Rorshacma (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will support a redirect to whichever target is deemed most appropriate. QuietHere (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect target might warrant a hat note to Billy Tucci, who published American Comics as Crusade Comics (currently a redirect). Argento Surfer (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Argento Surfer @Rorshacma I actually think the most appropriate target would be Crusade (disambiguation)#Comics. I've added a link to Billy Tucci there just now, and it also links to the potential target Crusades (comics). QuietHere (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An elegant solution, to be sure! Argento Surfer (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics. QuietHere (talk) 08:03, 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 keep. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Treasure[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a film, not making any serious claim to passing WP:NFILM. As always, films don't get an automatic notability freebie just because they exist, but must reliably source some evidence of significance (critical attention, noteworthy awards, etc.) -- but existence is the only claim on offer here, the article on the Croatian Wikipedia says even less than this does and cites just one primary source that isn't support for notability either, and I can find absolutely no WP:GNG-worthy sources about it on a Google search under either the English or Croatian titles.
Furthermore, this was prodded in January as "non-notable film", and then deprodded a few days later as "notable film" -- but you don't make a film notable by throwing the word "notable" around, you make a film notable by adding sources to improve the article, which never happened.
As I don't have access to any databases in which I could retrieve 25-year-old Croatian media coverage, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with access to such resources can find improved sourcing to salvage it with -- but simply existing isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to cite any reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Croatia. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's relatively easy to confirm its existence in Croatian sources - with a bit of trouble as its name is partially or fully ambiguous with other movie names and other works of art, but it definitely appears in all relevant indices as such. The general notability is somewhat dubious, because significant coverage online is scarce. I found a 2012 article in a mainstream web portal that includes it in a list of the best Croatian comedies. The history of the Pula Film Festival notes in their timeline for 1996 that this film caused a controversy there because it was shown despite its original language being English. That's about it. It's possible that it's becoming a cult trash film, but not sure. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I guess, based on the discussion above, sources are likely to exist in the native language. Good faith assumption. Oaktree b (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep poorly sourced articles just because we presume that better sources might exist than anybody has actually found or used — once notability has been questioned, it's necessary to demonstrate that sufficient GNG-worthy sourcing definitely does exist, and just speculating on possibilities isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The film has an entry in this book on the history of Croatian film: Ivo Škrabalo (2008). "Izgubljeno blago". Hrvatska filmska povijest ukratko: 1896-2006. V.B.Z. p. 216-218. The book discusses how the film began as a project by an amateur film maker. It took a ten year period to make, during which time that film maker became involved in documentary film making professionally. When it was released it became a critical success in Croatia. There's a plot summary and commentary on critical response to the work among the Croatian press/public. The film is also discussed briefly in this second book on Croatian film history, although the coverage is minimal in comparison to the first source: Nikica Gilić (2010). Uvod u povijest hrvatskog igranog filma. Leykam international. p. 145. ISBN 9789537534493. Given that two books on cinema history in Croatia address the work, and the fact that the one source indicates that there are Croatian language media reviews, I think this should pass WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of sources which are not "brief", nor presumed rather than found and shown, may help to determine the notability of the subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 00:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm not seeing much here, and a Google search turns up nothing that would help it meet WP:GNG, but I didn't look hard enough. =) Even so, given the above, I would really like to see some reliable sources to help this article stay. It's got some potential, but somebody needs to come in and fix it, and if we can find them in English so much the better. Worst case, maybe transwiki to the Croatian version of Wikipedia (if it exists). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:47, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Underhill Willets[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Road named after him is not relevant. No notable sources. A lot of sources talk about genealogy, which seems irrelevant to his only claim of notability. RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:29, 15 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!} 00:31, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one would expect having a road named after you means you did something important or interesting, but no, it appears that it's just because it goes through some land he owned. Nothing else suggests notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3mi1y (talk • contribs) 23:28, 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. Notability appears to be borderline, but on the balance there is consensus to keep. Some substantive sourcing has been provided, and the one argument challenging the strongest source is off the mark. No clear consensus on renaming, but the argument to reframe as an article about the huts themselves is strong, and I note that at least one of the sources appear to discuss the huts more than the association. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kosciuszko Huts Association[edit]

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

~~I don't think this specific volunteer group is too notable. The only significant mention I could find is this page on nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/.~~ RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Australia. RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:ORG . LibStar (talk) 01:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is a bit of a ridiculous nomination by a user ignorant of Australia which has clear alternatives to deletion. The Kosciuszko Huts have been around for a century or so and have significant associations with 20th Century Australian history (even though the volunteer association in its current form may have only been set up in 1971). Its papers are kept in the National Library of Australia. The sources describing the huts association is likely to be in book form rather than internet searches~~, so~~.I propose that we Keep the article, or if not then the best alternative is a Redirect to Kosciuszko National Park where there is already a mention of the huts and their maintenance. This will assist with any further sources that can be found. Deus et lex (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning, I am sorry I am not knowledgeable of every country on Earth. I guess I'll withdraw my nomination and set up the redirect. RPI2026F1 (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to be knowledgeable, but I'd respectfully suggest that a bit of searching beyond the Google search that was done would have easily shown the historic links to these huts. I'm sorry if my comment above implied bad faith (it wasn't intended), but I sometimes just get frustrated that not a lot of searching gets done before deletion is proposed. Deus et lex (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I fully agree with Deus et lex. --Bduke (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. Setting up a redirect to Kosciuszko National Park instead. RPI2026F1 (talk) 11:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @RPI2026F1: Just wanted to let you know that I've reverted the withdrawl, per WP:WDAFD, given that your deletion nomination has gained deletion support from at least one other person. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 11:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I didn't know too much about withdrawing policy, since I only learned of it very recently. I apologize for my premature withdrawal. RPI2026F1 (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also want to chime in here. Fails WP:ORG clearly, and the sourcing is non-reliable. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 11:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Clearly notable. I have added the three following sources to the article, all of which show substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources:

1. The organisation's archives are in the Australian National Library

2. Australian Geographic published a full-length feature article about the organisation in June 2022.

3. There are many newspaper articles about the association, although many are from pre-web days they can be found by search the Australian National Library newspaper search. I added one from 1991 to the article.

The article clearly needs improvement, but it's notable and should not be deleted. Lijil (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have updated my !vote to keep in the first place (with redirect an alternative). Deus et lex (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY; Lijil; Deus et lex. I have significantly expanded the page with numerous RSs. Clearly meets WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Cabrils (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of recent improvements to the article. Also consider the ATD of a redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean people like me who voted already should repeat our vote? I still think this is a clear keep, especially after extensive rewriting of the article with a lot more references. Lijil (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you shouldn't repeat your !vote, unless you want to change your recommendation. In which case you should strike through your earlier !vote. SpinningSpark 21:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In response to the previous closer's comment, I'll note that my proposal to redirect was only a secondary !vote; I am strongly in favour of keeping the article, particularly in line with the edits since the AfD was listed. I think consensus has been reached on that too. Deus et lex (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources highlighted by Lijil. The records in the Australian National Archive don't really count for notability (those are primary sources with no analysis of their significance) but newspaper articles and Australian Geographic are enough to meet GNG. SpinningSpark 21:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above or Delete. There are insufficient references that meet NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. We require references that provide in-depth information, including "Independent Content", on the subject, the association. The decent references all are based on interviews with people associated with the organization (fails WP:ORGIND) or are mentions-in-passing because of the recent fires. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the claim that interviews are not reliable sources is a myth. Australian Geographic is a highly reputable source and to claim it is in the realm of paid advertising is simply false. Enough has been added to keep the page. Deus et lex (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Anyone claiming that articles that rely entirely on interviews *for the purposes of establishing notability* of a *company* clearly is unfamiliar with WP:ORGIND which states that references must include "Independent Content", that is original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject . So yeah, maybe sometimes things that people say are myths actually turn out to be based on fact? You show me a reference that meets NCORP and include "Independent Content" and I'll WP:HEY my !vote - otherwise perhaps you should take another look at NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Independence refers to the creation of the source - the fact that you interview someone doesn't mean a source isn't independent. Secondary sources have to be derived from primary sources originally otherwise they would never exist. Asking someone what happened is a valid way of reporting something as long as it is accurate and not biased. The question is whether it's independent enough from the subject. The Australian Geographic article is a highly reputable source and linking it to something along the lines of paid advertising is nonsense. The article has been improved to meet the relevant criteria for Wikipedia. Deus et lex (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep afds are fun by the look of this one, I believe the organization and the huts exist, and the article is sufficient for its purpose away from afd rigmarole... JarrahTree 14:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In my opinion, it would be better to have an article on Kosciuszko huts rather than the organisation trying to preserve them. The org can be included in that article with a redirect from this title. It's the huts that have the notability and this arrangement avoids the stringent requirements we now have for org articles. But that is something for future consideration; it does not change my keep !vote. SpinningSpark 14:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Kosciuszko huts. Thanks to Spinningspark for the suggestion. Sources have established that the huts themselves are notable, and the association can be covered within an article about the huts. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:07, 29 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 00:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

La Cienega, Arizona[edit]

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

A more or less random spot in the forest taken from a Forest Service map. My guess is it has something to do with the notorious 1990 Dude Fire, but at any rate, not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 06:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failing WP:NGEO. A search for better sources indicates this place is a ranch or an estate. The GNIS definition for "populated place" only indicates that one or more permanently occupied residential buildings are located there. No evidence found of being a settlement. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 22 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 redirect to Soundwave (Australian music festival)#2010. ✗plicit 00:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soundwave 2010[edit]

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

This article isn't notable enough to have a stand-alone article. Or we could merge it with Soundwave (Australian music festival). Nythar (💬-🎃) 00:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Nythar (💬-🎃) 00:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Soundwave_(Australian_music_festival)#2010; I think it's more likely people would be searching for the festival itself rather than this CD. Not much to merge but I suppose Soundwave_(Australian_music_festival)#Compilation_albums could be expanded with track lists if anyone really thinks they need to be put somewhere (or the track list could be put in the 2010 section, whichever works). Should also take a look at Soundwave 2008 and Soundwave 2009, I don't think those pass notability either. QuietHere (talk) 05:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per QuietHere, useful content from here could be transcluded to its #Compilation albums subSection.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:20, 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.