< September 03	September 05 >

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 Hindi profanity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Madarchod[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This has been repeatedly recreated and deleted in the past for being a dictionary definition. In its current state, it's still a dictionary definition. I suggest that it be deleted (or maybe it could be merged with Hindi profanity). Spicy (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and India. Spicy (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete ~~per G4~~ [edit - just delete as below] WP:SPEEDY Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Last AfD happened in 2005, and that's over 16 years. That's to say G4 is not the best option here. I however agree that this should be merged with Hindi profanity. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. The nom said "repeatedly recreated and deleted" though. Sorry I did not pay enough attention to see that wasn't quite right. Still per WP:DICT I will leave my !vote as delete. Its essentially a dictionary definition and that goes on Wiktionary. I suppose a merge to Hindi profanity makes some kind of sense but I am not sure what I think of that page either. Should we have pages for profanity for all languages? Isn't Wiktionary a more appropriate project for these? But that one is not at AfD! :) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy, My two cents is, this topic fo-shizz has much more than just being a dictionary definition. It's in its initial stub form, hence, might look like nothing more than a definition, but it can be expanded with inclusion of its other cultural significance. Thanks. Jgqdg (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You may be right, and I am open to being persuaded, but I think we need some evidence of significance. It doesn't have to be in the article (per WP:NEXIST), but there should be some secondary sources about the word, its usage or its cultural significance. Can we find any? Note, simple usage of the word does not count. It needs to be something like an article that discusses the history, cultural significance etc. of the word. I have looked with some searches and not found any, but I don't know this language and it is entirely possible there are articles in Hindi about this (or, indeed, that I missed something because the word does show up in a lot of non notable ways and these may be hiding notable stuff).

But it is not enough to say that sources may exist. The page has been recreated after a previous deletion, and although that deletion was a long time ago, it remains the case that the onus is on the creator or those wanting to keep the article to show that such sources exist somewhere. If no such sources can be shown to exist, I would be content with a soft delete (treated as an expired prod) or a redirect to Hindi profanity that preserves page history. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dictdef Andre🚐 18:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hindi profanity to help bring it up to the level of other language profanity pages. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hindi profanity - or delete, but definitely shouldn't keep a dictionary entry. When an article cites urban dictionary, you really know it doesn't belong. PopoDameron (talk) 01:36, 11 September 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!} 06:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Munic Silva[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sri Lanka. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some SIGCOV here. Cbl62 (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing approaching GNG applied or found. News clipping presented is brief and largely a narrative from the subject. BusterD (talk) 03:00, 5 September 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. This discussion has been ongoing for two weeks, and in this time we have only one weak argument for delete. There is clearly no consensus to delete this article, and so the clear outcome is keep. Given the length of time and no strong submission for the contrary, a consensus for keep is the only tenable answer. Closing as a relist is unlikely to benefit the discussion. Any editor who disagrees with my close is welcome to ping me at my UTP and request me to undo the closure - I honour all requests to do so without the need for DRV. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Feith[edit]

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

The subject has been quoted lots of times, but doesn't appear to be the subject himself of reliable independent published sources. Google Books turns up a few pages of hits that say, "Greg Feith says..." or "Greg Feith, who works for the NTSB, believes..." but these are quotes by Feith about other events, not evidence of his own notability. I did not find significant discussion of Feith per se to qualify him for an article. The "Awards" section is unconvincing in this regard. A loose necktie (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Television, and Aviation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable aviation expert. Andre🚐 09:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject meets WP:GNG although the article is currently in poor shape. On May 29, 1996, the South Florida Sun Sentinel had an in-depth article about Feith, "Meet 'the Dick Tracy' of plane crashes'", page E1 [1] and in 2019 there was non-trivial coverage of him in the "CRASH EXPERT GREG FEITH SLAMS CRITICS OF 737 MAX CERTIFICATION PROCESS" article at airlineratings.com website.[2]. There are others, but I stopped looking at this point. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete He has appeared frequently on news shows as an aviation expert, mainly discussing airline crashes. (I found > 20 references to Today show, NBC, and others, searching Ebsco) A NYT article calls him: "Greg Feith, the telegenic investigator who was dubbed the Mud Stud by some in the media when he was handling the Valujet crash in the Everglades, was profiled in several articles." At the time he was an investigator with NTSB. I admit that I wasn't able to find any good sources about him and most of the news sources are him discussing aviation problems with the host. If anyone can show that he meets WP:ANYBIO 2 ("a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field;"), then I will change my !vote to keep. I'm just not sure what evidence there is for that. Lamona (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP He is a notable expert "detective" with plane crashes. There are articles in Newspapers.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleebis007 (talk • contribs) 06:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable aviation expert. Lightburst (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The consensus is to Keep this article but that isn't a correct decision if there is no significant coverage about him (despite his media profile).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment another tough one, I get hits where he's commenting on various airline accidents, but nothing about him as a person. Even in GScholar I only get about a half dozen hits, where he talks about xyz accident that happened. I'd be willing to give it a pass, seems notable in his field of work but little proof found. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment added citations about his personal life and and a New York Times story that says that he was profiled in news stories. WP:NEXT Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. I found sufficient information on his personal life and profile. The New York Times story indicates that there is more. It appears that he turned down presence in the press to protect his privacy and personal life and focussed on his work.Kleebis007 (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a tough one. Although he gets passing mention in articles of New York Times and Washington Post but it still somehow shows that he's notable because getting mentions in articles published in highly notable news channels is not easy unless you are notable person. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifthapril (talk • contribs) 11:20, 11 September 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 04:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Little (inventor)[edit]

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

BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO- the individual (rather than the companies) lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Engineering, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability, if any, is for the companies not the individual, so fails GNG. Also note the article creator is a SPA which suggests COI. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is insufficient notability for the subject. In addition, it meets criterion number 4 of WP:DEL-REASON as in its current form, it's just an advertisement for the subject's business activities. Schwede 66 09:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage of the subject in [3] and [4]. Promotional issues in such a short article can be easily fixed. ~Kvng (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kvng. Those two articles are interview-based and therefore aren't independent coverage. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between interview-based and an interview. But even a straight-up WP:INTERVIEW may contain some WP:SECONDARY material if the introduction is comprehensive enough. There are some sources cited here that are interviews or only mention the subject in the context of a quote, said Little. The two I've listed here do go further than that. ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure not hidden advertisement. --多少战场龙 (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - New Zealand's business and innovation landscape is small with companies such as Rocket Lab, Xero, Exsurgo and Rex Bionics gaining public interest as high profile enterpreneur-led organisations. Sunshineyellow2014 (talk) 08:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the closer: this is the first and only edit of this account. Schwede 66 08:42, 4 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!} 23:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article content is almost entirely about the company and its products, not the person. The notability of the person has not been sufficiently established. --Marshelec (talk) 05:08, 5 September 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 04:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anda Butuc[edit]

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

Non-notable gymnast. I could not find a reliable source on her. The sources in Google News are all tabloid-y mentioning her only accompanying her husband(? fiancée?), or briefly mention her name in relation to gymnastics. Digi Sport, ProSport, etc. are really poor-quality. SWinxy (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Sports, and Romania. SWinxy (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 4 September 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 Procter & Gamble brands#Discontinued brands. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swash (brand)[edit]

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

I deprodded and expanded this article 10 years ago, but in hindsight I don't think the brand meets the notability guideline for organisations, products and services. Few of the sources cited (probably only the Wall Street Journal and Domain Name Wire) satisfy WP:ORGIND; the others are trade publications, articles based on press releases, and the like. As Procter & Gamble used the "Swash" name to sell at least two separate ranges, this is also a borderline WP:FRANKENSTEIN. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Products, and United States of America. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Procter & Gamble brands#Discontinued brands. It does seem mention-worthy as a verifiable brand by this company. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't object to this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:50, 7 September 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 Polyphenol#Potential health effects to Polyphenol#Potential_health_effects. There was agreement that the content should be preserved at the target, and this incorporation has occurred. I did not delete the page history so attribution can be maintained. The redirect is the normal type that any editor can change, but it does reflect the consensus reached during this discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Health effects of phenols and polyphenols[edit]

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

The article is WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Polyphenols#Potential health effects is very similar.

The page Health effects of phenols and polyphenols duplicates the entry Polyphenol#Potential_health_effects. There has been some divergence in the past and both pages had very different information. In order to maintain consistency, one would have to make sure that both pages are at least similar.

There is however no need to have to pages dedicated to potential health effects of polyphenols.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggux (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Health and fitness. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may be better for the general readership to redirect this article rather than deleting it, WP:R. The redirect would go to here among wider topic coverage. Although this article has only 31 editors following it, there have been more than 500 page views in the past month, indicating sufficient public interest to justify redirecting from a web search. Deferring to admin on the outcome. Zefr (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a sensible solution if that is feasible, Ggux (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLAR – I've saved the text. Will conduct a BLAR (IAW Zefr's recommendation) when my WikiGnome brain is rested and can sort out the info – S. Rich (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom (one page with unified content on a topic) and redirect per Zefr (redirects are cheap and readers seem to find it). But BLAR rather than delete, so that the pre-merged content and attribution-history is preserved. DMacks (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just wanted to clarify, since both WP:BLAR and WP:MERGE have been used in the discussion in potentially confusing ways- these are distinct things. Both result in the source page being blanked and turned into a redirect, but only a MERGE results in content from the redirected page being copied to the target. I assume the target is Polyphenol#Potential_health_effects? It would help for us to identify what content from this article should be copied into the target section. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good point. Sometimes a "merge" consensus involves deleting the original after merging the content, and occasionally not even leaving a redirect. I'm merely agreeing that to the extent others think there is worthy content, it should be unified, and the other page should be converted to a redirect without "deletion" in the admin-special-button sense. DMacks (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit, Ggux apparently copied from the raw content, and pasted the content into the Polyphenols Research section here. The section has been edited since the import, and appears to be accurate. The article that remains now here is outdated. Should the content be deleted, with the title remaining alone?

My comment above to redirect came from assumption that general searches for the 'health effects of polyphenols' would be redirected from this page to the Polyphenols Research section. Zefr (talk) 23:02, 4 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!} 23:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Just merge and redirect the content on "Health effects of phenols and polyphenols" to the Polyphenol#Potential_health_effects article (after merging the content can be cleaned up and/or expanded or trimmed). I don't see any point in having a stand alone article when some of the content is already duplicated on the main article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article would just be merged to Polyphenol as there isn't currently a "Potential health effects" section on this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reiterating from my comment a few lines above: 1) the merge already was done by Ggux on 27 Aug. The entire "Health effects of phenols and polyphenols" article was copied from the edit function (therefore, no history is shown) and pasted into the Polyphenol article under a section called "Potential health effects". 2) Ggux replaced the content of "Health effects of phenols and polyphenols" with an older version that had been under revision and debate, which were discontinued here because the merge was already completed, and this article was nominated for deletion on 28 Aug. 3) the "Polyphenol#Potential_health_effects" section has been subsequently edited, including a change of its subhead to "Research"; the Research section existing there is the entire, edited content of the "Health effects of phenols and polyphenols" article. 4) if editors agree, the entire content of the existing "Health effects of phenols and polyphenols" article can be deleted, with the title remaining and being redirected to the "Polyphenol#Research" section. Zefr (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the content has already been merged so this article should be deleted and redirected to Polyphenol#Research. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 16:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starcraft Marine[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original rationale was: No RS, no attempt at notability, entire article is a brochure. Rationale still stands, as well as failing WP:NCORP as a whole. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Indiana. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is insufficient Reliable Sources to remain as an article on wikipedia, it should be deleted by an admin. Chip3004 (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable boat manufacturer.[5][6][7][8] Several results in an EbscoHost search through boating periodicals. Andre🚐 05:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks in-depth coverage of the company itself, in order to meet WP:NCORP. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:52, 4 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!} 23:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the first three sources presented above are about products made by this company, not this company itself. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The fourth source gives no more than a trivial mention of the company. I was unable to find SIGCOV myself. House Blaster^talk 19:56, 6 September 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 11:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations[edit]

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

Lack of independent notability. QueenofBithynia (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm only halfway through updating the article and adding sources (just getting to the interesting part), but am confident that there are enough independent sources establishing notability of this think tank, known in Germany as Stiftung für die Rechte zukünftiger Generationen, per WP:GNG or WP:NONPROFIT. For in-depth coverage, I would point to this 2000 article in e-Politik.de (For more info about the publication, see German Wikipedia; the author does not appear to be a representative of SRzG and the article is written neutrally and includes details that the organization itself was not pushing in its own press materials.) There is also a review of a book published by the SRzG in the academic journal Zeitschrift für Politik, and an in-depth article in Tagesspiegel on the origins of a legislative prize awarded by the SRzG, which includes a couple of quotes from the foundation but also quotes from external sources and the journalists' own observations and fact-finding. In addition, there are numerous academic sources within the article now analyzing the importance of the SRzG/FRFG and providing political context, also in English, specifically included because they aren't just citing SRzG publications as a source (with the exception of 2 pieces so far by Tremmel). I haven't done a thorough search of German newspapers yet (which I have limited access to) but fully expect that there is more to find there. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A new redirect can always be created after this article has been deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pasquale Granata[edit]

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

A search for sources has provided nothing more than passing mentions in articles about GF Biochemicals or Mathieu Flamini, and a single interview, so I don't believe he meets WP:BIO's notability requirements. - ThatSpiderByte (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. Bgsu98 (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GF Biochemicals, with which he seems to be primarily associated. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See if there is more support for a redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 4 September 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. ✗plicit 11:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Okash[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NOLYMPICS as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Somalia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He also competed for USC and still holds the Pac-12 record in the 800m. I added a bit. Cbl62 (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references Cbl62 added get him over the line, I think. St Anselm (talk) 05:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 4 September 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 Somalia at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Hassan Mohamed[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NOLYMPICS as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Somalia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got some coverage when terrorists assassinated the Somali Olympic Committee President 4 months before the games, probably not enough, but there may be more. The name is very difficult to search because it's so common. Cbl62 (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect with Somalia at the 2012 Summer Olympics. He is mentioned there, and there is also a brief mention there of the assassination. After three weeks at AfD, no SIGCOV focused on him that would warrant a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 19:13, 6 September 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. This bundled AFD is a mess to sort out. The nominator has decided to withdraw it and present all of the articles in individual AFDs or at least in smaller bundles where the different articles have more relation to each other than simply having "Mill" in the article title. This appears to be the best route to achieving consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lawthorne Mill, Virginia[edit]

This is a bundle of articles that were created from GNIS listings which erroneously list them as "populated places" despite being run-of-the-mill, well, mills. See WP:GNIS for more information about this common source of error. I'm including a fairly small batch of articles that meet the following criteria:

Not a "populated, legally recognized place" that would have presumed notability under WP:GEOLAND
No evidence of a community (post office, school, mentions of people being "from" there, etc)
Confirmed to be an actual mill (current or historical) at the location
No significant coverage that would meet WP:GNG –dlthewave ☎ 15:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lawthorne Mill, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Millesons Mill, West Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Eads Mill, West Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Dunn Mill, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Klines Mill, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Hoover Mill, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

Aylett Mill, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Fletcher Mill, Virginia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Star Mill, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 15:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Indiana, Missouri, Virginia, and West Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Star Mill, Indiana to Star Milling and Electric Company Historic District. Delete Fletcher Mill, Virginia, and Aylett Mill, Virginia. That's as many as I could get through without being bored to tears. It probably wasn't the greatest idea to bundle this nomination: was there any reason why you couldn't have used WP:PROD? Well, it's too late now, I guess. Lewis Mill, Missouri appears to have at least a nearby bridge named after it and a local beekeeping store, which suggests there's Something at that location, but whether it's a true community is entirely lost on me. casualdejekyll 18:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Star Mill, Indiana to Star Milling and Electric Company Historic District.Djflem (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Mass-produced junk for non-notable places. Make whatever redirects you want later, it's not worth keeping the history of page that falsely claims a mill is a community. Reywas92^Talk 02:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lawthorne Mill, Virginia. I didn't find anything significant. The bundling is unfortunate as some of the other articles I've briefly researched have a large number of sources. This will be very difficult to navigate.Jacona (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoover Mill, Indiana. I found lots of references to Hoover Mill or Hoover's Mill in Indiana. It seems that there were several such mills, but none of the ones I found mentioned were in Wayne County. Again, this bundling is very unfortunate in that there is no relationship whatsoever between the articles other than how they were created, and their notability is across the board. I'm working on the obvious deletes first, because deletion is so much easier to justify than keeping. Jacona (talk) 13:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lewis Mill, Missouri. A search of newspapers.com shows this is a populated place that will meet WP:GEOLAND. Because of the bundling, this is going to take some time to gather clippings, and I may never get around evaluating all of the articles, but this one is a keep.Jacona (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references in article and above.Djflem (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aylett Mill, Virginia. Didn't find anything that looked relevant on gSearch or newspapers.com. Jacona (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The rest of these, based on newspapers.com search are going to be a mix of deletes and keeps, probably more deletes than keeps, but some of both. Jacona (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep this bundled nomination fails to correctly address the individual issues in each particular case. While some are literal mills, others like Lewis Mill and Star Mill have a genuine history that can be covered. The nominator should have nominated these individually. casualdejekyll 14:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would support procedural keep, since a cursory examination reveals a poor Wikipedia:BEFORE, making this bundle, well, more than just mills.Djflem (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing Lewis Mill (nom) - There seems to be enough evidence of a community here that it shouldn't be bundled, although I'd like to see more SIGCOV sourcing. Note that this location in Clariton County, MO shouldn't be confused with another Lewis Mill in Daviess County, MO which has a namesake bridge where a historic gristmill was uncovered. –dlthewave ☎ 17:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Star Mill, Indiana to Star Milling and Electric Company Historic District. Jacona (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Dunn Mill, Indiana to Lake Township, Allen County, Indiana, where the community is mentioned. Per Wikipedia:NGEO If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. Djflem (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we have any sourcing that would support inclusion in the "unincorporated communities" section of the article. This was just a mill, and we don't usually include lists of mills in township articles unless something more can be written about its history etc. –dlthewave ☎ 12:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dunn Mill. While I found lots of info on newspapers.com, it referenced the mill, not a community. Jacona (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is going to be a mess to close (a variety of different opinions on different articles) and I don't anticipate a closure happening very soon. I recommend a procedural close/withdrawal and then nominating these articles individually. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I think it makes sense to withdraw. If you close this one then I'll open individual AfDs and ping those who've already participated. –dlthewave ☎ 13:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

dlthewave, I think a withdrawal of the nomination makes sense but I can't close on that basis since there are votes to Delete some of the articles. I think the best resolution is a No Consensus closure which I think is a valid closure given how all over the map this discussion has been. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good point. I would be happy with that as well. –dlthewave ☎ 12:30, 10 September 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. It's snowing Star Mississippi 18:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preparation (principle)[edit]

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

I kinda expect to get burned for nominating this, but here goes nothing. This article is a nothingburger that fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY. This is worth an entry on wikictionary, but nothing else. At the moment the article just feels-like a hopeless mish-mash who's contents would be better covered elsewhere. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Social science. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to clean this up, but ultimately it's a clusterfuck of WP:NOR, an essay and frankly just utter, useless nonsense. The wiktionary definition of preparation is perfectly adequate rather than this...very philosophical diatribe. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete among other reasons, this needs a healthy dose of WP:TNT, not to mention this doesn't even merit an article in the first place. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I absolutely agree… WTH is this? 😳 Bgsu98 (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also tried to clean this up a little, but it remains a mix of a dictionary definition and a lot of synthesis from disparate sources. firefly ( t · c ) 22:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete baffling dicdef. Protonk (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not in any way appear encyclopaedic. Gusfriend (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard to imagine how one would write an encyclopedic article, rather than a dictionary definition, about this subject. What we have now (and had prior to some extensive trimming) certainly isn't an encyclopedic article, just a WP:OR hodgepodge of various instances where the word "preparation" is used. Preparation is a handling principle whereby people do specific designed arrangements to get ready for a final desirable product or for a successful experience ... I feel like I know less about the topic than I did before reading the article. Spicy (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a total crock of shite. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Andre🚐 23:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I mean, really? FrederalBacon (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT if nothing else. It's hard -- very hard -- to identify the most wretched passage in this slagheap of inexplicable miscellany, but here's a leading candidate:
The concept of preparation has a Venn relationship with the concept of planning; the two concepts are separate but closely intertwined. In scholarly use, the concept of planning is often associated with long-tailed, open-ended processes of chronological foresight, while the concept of preparation is more closely tied to immediate steps taken to achieve a tangible, closed-ended goal. If a diligent preparation is made in a concern or issue then steps can be put in place to get the desired results. Good outcome favors the one prepared. For example, a dietitian may counsel their clients on the elements of meal planning, and after internalizing this training the client may utilize their meal-planning skills in the immediate task of preparing a nutritional meal that will be healthy.

The above is cited to (AND I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP) something entitled "Guess Who's Cooking? The Role of Men in Meal Planning, Shopping, and Preparation in US Families" in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Really. I'm not joking. Much of the rest of the article is sourced to self-help books, how-to-get-ahead-in-salesmanship manuals, and other stuff such as Guide for Those with Autism and Asperger's Syndrome; How I Raised Myself from Failure; One Thing You Need to Know Great Managing; 50 Secrets From the Science of Persuasion; Bride of Anguished English: Bonanza of Bloopers, Blunders, and Botches; and (of course) The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership: Follow Them and People Will Follow You. Apparently the word preparation was Googled and random passages related to cooking and so on duly dumped into the article, complete with mention of Venn diagrams where necessary.

There seems to be an almost complete lack of understanding of what constitutes appropriate sourcing and article content. I fear the creator's other efforts will need to be scrutinized -- list at [9]. E Eng 00:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Coldwell likes to brag about his quantity of GAs; clearly, zero consideration has been given to quality in the process. Going through all 234 articles will take a long time but it must be done. This is what you get when someone focuses exclusively on getting as many shiny icons on their userpage as possible without any consideration as to minor details like "reliable sources" or "actually writing something coherent". And that's when he isn't just citing local news about himself and shoehorning it into articles, as he tried to do on this one several times. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Inappropriate synthesis of random sources leads to an unhelpful combination of an essay and a dictionary definition which appears irredeemably unencyclopaedic. Jack Frost (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and everyone else. An absolute shitshow this article is... XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 04:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is an odd synthesis of sources and ends up being a combination of dictionary definition and an instruction manual, which I guess it can't help but be worded like that since all the refs are instruction manuals and inspirational books themselves. The end result reads more like a Wikipedia user essay than a Wikipedia article (especially when looking at the pre-trimmed version). - Aoidh (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the version just linked (which, I assure you, is well worth clicking on):
Many times a checklist is the result of someone not doing the proper beforehand steps needed before a major event is to occur (i.e., airplane takeoff, medical procedure) and later disastrous results happen because of this lack of preparedness.[10] Meetings should involve people being first notified so they can do preparation ahead of the meeting time.
Preparation involves a fact-finding mission in getting a qualified person for a position in a company. This includes not only the characteristics of the potential new employee but the parameters of a particular company including its policies and dynamics. The person as a business partner should know how to solve problems, create opportunities, and use the company’s strengths in a strategic way. Organizations involved in teaching must prepare new knowledge to teach individuals to grow. This preparation of new information and teaching self-motivation then involves forming knowledge acquisition plans. On the job training engages people in activities that are practical in preparation for an improvement in their career skills. To get an individual self-motivated one should be taught how certain information and preparation of specific skills will benefit them personally. A method of preparation is when a manager will explain what is expected as an end result and some possible ways to accomplish that and get the employee engaged in real life situations. Having a well defined preparation system will increase one's chances of becoming a strong competitor. Preparation is to harness your passion of something with a system of developing steps to accomplish a good outcome. It is used in business transactions and company management. Professionals in all fields that achieve their goals are masters at preparing and putting their tasks in an orderly manner to be done at the appropriate time. Many times an important part of preparation is the concept that time is of the essence and applies especially to contract law.

From the above, we are apparently to conclude that preparation encompasses any form of goal-directed activity. E Eng 06:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article that includes such banal and vapid content such as The concept of preparation has a Venn relationship with the concept of planning; the two concepts are separate but closely intertwined. In scholarly use, the concept of planning is often associated with long-tailed, open-ended processes of chronological foresight, while the concept of preparation is more closely tied to immediate steps taken to achieve a tangible, closed-ended goal. If a diligent preparation is made in a concern or issue then steps can be put in place to get the desired results. Good outcome favors the one prepared.. How come my efforts to write and carry out a grocery shopping list, and sort and chop up the ingredients of tonight's dinner are not included? Perhaps it is because we have a better written article Mise en place which could be improved. But this article is a poorly conceived mish-mosh. Planning is a better article on a closely related topic. Cullen328 (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since I believe this article fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY. This concern was expressed in a thread back in August 2014, when it was considered to be merged in the planning article, but an IP user reiterated the NOTDICTIONARY concern on the talk page as recently as last week. Reading through this article, I'm not convinced that the principle of preparation is substantially separate from the concept of planning. Additionally, as Aoidh mentions above, there is a lot of WP:SYNTH present in the article (which, in the previous version of the page, was even worse).
While this has been removed now, the previous version of the article also read like an essay at several points: Drafts allow time to get inter-library loan books and other source material (i.e. return email inquiries). It also allows you to leave unfinished sentences to give time and thought to figure out what you want to say as a final result. Drafts allow you to modify and rewrite later, so time is not of the essence when your work is to be done. You can make as many sandbox drafts as you want by simply creating on your user page a redlink which is done by typing a forward slash and the name of your sandbox draft within brackets. Examples could be [[/Sandbox1]] and [[/Sandbox2]] and [[/Sandbox3]] and [[/Sandbox4]], etc. Then you could have dozens of draft sandboxes to write up your new articles and new thoughts on sections. Drafting gives a quieter experience where other editors are unlikely to edit what you have written. Drafting in a live article should only be done by an experienced editor. The current version of the article still has evidence of this essay-like writing, e.g. Professionals in all fields that achieve their goals are masters at preparing and putting their tasks in an orderly manner to be done at the appropriate time. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition and as a coatrack. I see that, in preparation (principled or otherwise) for the American football season, the reviewers are piling on. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any way to salvage this article. Even what it would ostensibly cover is vague and the current article presentation is nonsensical. If there is anything that can be done with this topic in the future, I would implore any future person who tries creating it from scratch to use actual scholarly publications that properly define and utilize the subject and not a bunch of very general purpose business books as is shown in the article right now. Silver seren^C 20:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as incoherent. Caleb Stanford (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kinda piling on at this point, but this really has no place here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 17:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Articles baffles me with its existence, Delete Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zealot Trivia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. No indication from searches that it is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant an article. CrimsonFox ^talk 21:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. CrimsonFox ^talk 21:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to find any reliable sources to incorporate, either on Google or Archive.org. Delete per nom. Waxworker (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it may have passed muster back in 2006, it is definitely insufficiently notable for current Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete though a bit wistfully to delete something as old and weird and arcane as this. Andre🚐 00:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Highkey Holdings Inc[edit]

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

Reviewed through NPP, obviously non-notable company sourced exclusively to unreliable sources and press releases/sponsored posts (the Yahoo article is a press release distributed through Accesswire and the "USA Today" article has a large disclaimer at the bottom stating "Members of the editorial and news staff of USA TODAY Network were not involved in the creation of this content.") Spicy (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Spicy (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a company, created on a new editor's 13th edit. The references (one of which throws a malware warning) are to PR profile pieces on the company founders. In searches, the best that I can see is a bylined article about them "Winnipeg brothers are Canada's rising tech stars", though again it is uncritical and promotionally worded. Regarding the company itself, I don't see the coverage needed for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Klimov (footballer)[edit]

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

Badly sourced BLP which was then moved to Draft:Aleksandr Klimov (footballer), trivially 'improved' and then correctly declined by Greenman for failing to demonstrate how the subject is notable. The 5th bullet point of WP:SPORTBASIC requires all articles on sportspeople to have at least one example of significant coverage and specifically says that database sites don't count towards this. Subject is a semi-pro that has not yet played a game in one of the two professional Russian leagues (according to Soccerway) so I find it unlikely that such sourcing exists.

Google News search in conjunction with the name of the club that he plays for yields no relevant hits; the first article mentions in passing a referee of the same name, not a footballer. DDG also didn't seem to yield any independent WP:RS. ~~This article should be deleted and the draft kept.~~ Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any English or Russian language SIGCOV online; fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KanwalPreet Singh[edit]

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

non notable vanity spam sourced to blackhat seo and non-rs PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Moved from article space to draft space by reviewer, but moved back by author. McClenon mobile (talk) 20:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nommed; not one RS among the sources cited. No indication of notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No analysis of sources is being provided because one was being developed for 7 references, and the article was then reference-bombed with another 20 sources for 27. It can be inferred that the originator's purpose is only to include the article in the encyclopedia and not to improve the encyclopedia with the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP- i hink it is wriiten in he way that need to be published on wikipedia Ranjan kushwaha 123 (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be WP:SPAM. Dee 03 12:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pandit Dasa[edit]

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

vanity spam about a non notable person. despite the claims he's been featured in multiple RS, they are demonstrably untrue as they are all contributor pieces and I can't find anything in actual rs to support inclusion. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, they are all indeed contributor pieces, and techtimes.com in particular publishes little else. Edit history and unsourced personal details suggest a conflict of interest or undeclared paid editing. Storchy (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Doesn't appear notable alone. Nythar^T^.^C 20:14, 5 September 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) 20:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of University of Maryland student organizations[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. This article provides little to no context and seems to serve as an extension of promotional material for clubs at University of Maryland. No sources. Wozal (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Lists, United States of America, and Maryland. Wozal (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is a poor replicate of the primary and only source. Reywas92^Talk 23:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly a case of WP:NOTDIR. -TheodoreIndiana (talk) 13:31, 5 September 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) 19:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Northeastern University student organizations[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. This article provides little to no context and seems to serve as an extension of promotional material for clubs at Northeastern University. Wozal (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Lists, United States of America, and Massachusetts. Wozal (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Since this is just a bare list with no other information, there's not anything worth merging to Northeastern University#Student organizations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm an alum of Northeastern, but agree with the above. Beyond that, it's a very sloppy list. I know for a certain fact that some of the entries are defunct, and somewhat startlingly, the purported source for the student-run record label is in fact the speech therapy program off of the health sciences program. Very poor work. Ravenswing 23:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 09:54, 5 September 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 Bay Ridge Branch. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Myrtle Avenue station (LIRR Bay Ridge Branch)[edit]

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

Non-notable train station. Closed 98 years ago, and there's simply almost no sourcing on this station, because it's unremarkable. This should be redirected to Bay Ridge Branch, but as any sort of redirect would be contested, I'm bringing this to AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bay Ridge Branch#Former stations per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kouwenhoven station. There's nothing in the station article worth merging save for the open/close dates, which are already in the branch article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. The only other mentions I find of this station are in old timetables; I haven't found any significant coverage to support a standalone article. ^Complex/_Rational 01:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Honestly, I couldn't find anything about this station other than trivial coverage; I think this was created mainly because the topic could be confused with another station. Epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius is correct, as there was a second station at a different location on Myrtle Avenue. Of note with this station, it would be rebuilt if the Triboro RX or Interboro Express is ever built. Obviously, I’d like to see the article not be deleted. Thanks for reading. —SkipperRipper (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others and also because the creator's defence in making the article is not cogent. We cannot simply assume the station will be rebuilt to the point that it becomes notable enough for an article, nor is multiple things having the same name a good reason to create articles. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:52, 10 September 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 Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes#Season 10 (2020). (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spite store[edit]

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

The term "spite store" is not covered by multiple independent reliable sources in a significant way and is thus a non-notable neologism. However, it is mentioned as a plot point in an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm. As such, this page should be turned into a redirect to List_of_Curb_Your_Enthusiasm_episodes#Season_10_(2020), where it is mentioned. I am bringing this to AfD in light of this RfC as a bold WP:BLAR was contested. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes#Season 10 (2020) per nom; WP:BLAR contests have not provided any evidence of notability as per WP:BURDEN, which also reek of WP:DICDEF and WP:FANCRUFT. Redirection allows those searching for the term to see where it came from. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "Redirection allows those searching for the term to see where it came from." What does that mean? Fxmastermind (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than argue, the obvious solution is to redirect to The Spite Store, which will redirect to a page that doesn't explain anything. There is a precedent for this already set. It's The Soup Nazi, which is exactly the same thing as The Spite Store. It's both a made up comedic term, and the title of the TV show, where the term is used repeatedly. That both are creations of the same writer, Larry David, should make this one obvious. So just like The Soup Nazi, when somebody searches for The Spite Store, they redirected to a list of Seinfeld episodes, that doesn't explain anything. See? There is already a history of how to handle these sort of things here. No need to argue or fight over the matter. Also I apologize if this format is wrong for a discussion page. This is not something I usually do. Fxmastermind (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If this format is incorrect, it can be edited. Fxmastermind (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Now if I wanted to argue I would post a list of current articles discussing real life Spite Stores, as well as the exact same kinds of references that are used for The Soup Nazi redirect, as well as the convoluted argument about consistency in articles, what is considered notable, maybe even make some snide commentary about certain people not knowing about a subject they are trying to delete, but I'm sure that would all be an exercise in futility, based on past experience. Which is why I vote redirect. Then the only issues is to do a double redirect? Or just directly to the article that doesn't help? I think we all know the answer already. Fxmastermind (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This page --> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soup_nazi&direction=prev&oldid=66843745 may serve as an example of how to resolve the matter. Soup Nazi is both a term, as well as a title of an episode. The Soup Nazi The eventual destination of the redirects explains that --> "The Soup Nazi is also the nickname of the eponymous character, Yev Kassem," .... which is the goal of Spite Store. It should explain that the term is both a title, and a subject of the show. Unlike the Soup Nazi, the Spite Store is a vehicle for much of the season, not just one episode. None of this is explained in the list of episodes. And the redirect does not go the the episode name The Spite Store, which is the other problem. Fxmastermind (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed Spite Store and Spite store are different. I am going to fix that problem right now. Fxmastermind (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't see the need for this type of article, particularly since its unsourced. Redirect seems to be ideal. scope_creep^Talk 08:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am noting there has been no reply, no discussion of any of the points raised. I'm sure this comment is the wrong format, but since it's just us three here, how important is it? (by us three, I mean it's just three people that have posted here so far)Fxmastermind (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Walls[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Granted with a name like this, searches are more difficult then normal, I however could not find any in my local search. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Ireland. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Breathless in tone and lacking any independent reliable sources, it clearly fails WP:NBAND, notability cannot be inherited by supporting other bands or recording cover versions of notable bands. Theroadislong (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes. There are issues with tone and referencing within the article itself. However, deletion is not cleanup. And a lack of sources to support an article's text doesn't equate to a lack of sources to support a subject's notability. In terms of WP:NBAND, the subject meets criteria 2 ("single or album on any country's national music chart"). This is stated in the article and supported by the relevant entry in the Irish single's charts archive [10]. Which confirms that the band charted a single in 2002 (in the Irish top 20 for 3 weeks). In terms of WP:SIGCOV, a quick WP:BEFORE search in national media/news sources (like national broadcaster RTÉ), return coverage and reviews of several albums, evidence of radio play/coverage, and news of performances/etc. Similar coverage appears in national newspapers, like The Irish Independent (2014) and regional papers including Sligo Champion (2005) and Connacht Tribune (2013). Nom notes that own WP:BEFORE was perhaps incomplete. While my own WP:BEFORE was also not tireless, even a quick search has thrown up evidence of national coverage, national air play, charting in national singles chart, etc. Mine is a "keep" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified above and for charting in a national music chart to pass criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is enough to warrant an article, though it does need clean up. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As nominator I do now feel this is a keep and will withdraw the nomination if Theroadislong is of the same mindset, otherwise someone else will have close in a few days. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes that’s fine.Theroadislong (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aaja Mexico Challiye[edit]

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

Possibly a non-notable film. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The film does have a review from The Times of India. Not sure if Cinestaan is notable. DareshMohan (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has at least two reliable sources reviews, Cinestaan was found to be reliable at the Indian film project task force, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have replaced some junk resources with reliable ones. It now passes the Wikipedia notability standard. Vicozico13 (talk) 7:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Political stagnation[edit]

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

This is just a vague general term. It's not a notable concept or phenomenon. The entire article is primarily composed of WP:OR that does not use the term, as well as a few cases where individuals have used the general term in random and inconsistent ways. Thenightaway (talk) 15:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research which would be a pain to maintain. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, as said above, OR cannot just be presumed. The onus is on you. if you think it is OR, please explain, with examples, where the OR is? Crawiki (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to say, but this is mostly careless generalisation. Point by point;

'This is just a vague general term. It's not a notable concept or phenomenon'... not so. a google search on 'political stagnation' reveals numerous scholarly articles on the subject, referencing key persons/ publications such as Mikhail Gorbachev and the Spectator magazine.

'The entire article is primarily composed of WP:OR that does not use the term'... I note that Thenightaway gives no examples to support this, perhaps he/she would care to do so and all objections can then be debated. A brief read of the article shows that use of the words 'entire' and 'primarily' is, frankly, dishonest.

'Individuals have used the general term in random and inconsistent ways'. Again, no examples are provided to support this point. Crawiki (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the sources in this article essentially boil down to *individually* describing countries going through periods or processes of political stagnation; those sources are therefore useful for articles on those countries. They cannot be *synthesised* into a generalised understanding of political stagnation; that is original research. Support for the existence of this article requires sources that examine political stagnation as a theoretical concept across a variety of situations/contexts/countries etc. Those sources don't really exist because the notion of "political stagnation" is so generalised, it's no different than the term "political change". It's no more than a shorthand description used to characterise a particular situation, not something that contains meaning in and of itself (which would potentially establish the necessity for an article). At very best, it could be a dictionary entry, but unfortunately we're not here to build a dictionary. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are related discussions about the article "State collapse" (which is proposed to be merged with Failed State:[11]) and "Political midlife crisis"(which is proposed for deletion here:[12]), which appear to have been created by the same editor. Thenightaway (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, objection from the page creator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An interesting subject, but it seems to be a WP:SYNTHESIS rather than an accepted topic of study. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:22, 6 September 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 03:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raila Doctrine[edit]

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

Can't find the said quote in the referenced sources, it seems made up and may be an attack page of a living person Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 08:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 08:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Kenya. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added some context to the origin of the phrase during the hearing of the petition into the 2013 Kenyan Presidential election. This was captured on national tv as linked below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syz0azWRU-E&t=3078s Profesamwitu (talk) 09:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G10. I cannot find any use of this term anywhere except in the comment section of a news article, where it was used by an opponent of Odinga. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there truly a need for "thorough discussion"? The subject of this article was and still is something of national interest within Kenyan politics and I will gladly add more first hand information from credible media sources for those who are struggling with research. After all the petition into a presidential election is worth documenting.

In conclusion I will concede this topic does need to be cleaned up but I will wait on the important decision making people to make up their minds and give directions. Profesamwitu (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT There is an article about this wikipedia article in the Nairobi Wire. Also check out the discussion in the talk page dating to almost a decade ago.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: G3. Pretty clearly made up. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Green (British Virgin Islands footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in BVI news sources or anything relating to his time with Hyde. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Havel[edit]

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

Page on an ordinary Croatian professor who does not fit into any of the notability criteria for academics or other notability criteria. As it is, the page qualifies as self-promotion. The only independent source found is this not particularly sympathetic article on Jutarnji List, which gives an idea of his political positions but does not add much to his notability (translated excerpt):

"Zagreb professor Dr. Boris Havel belongs among the people who disseminate this siege discourse. In recent years, this professor of political science has published a number of articles and books on Middle Eastern politics, texts in which he demonstrates knowledge and expertise, but also (unfortunately) a rather blunt lobbyist inclination towards Israeli politics. Havel is also one of the most visible Croatian promoters of anti-multicultural panic. [...] Professor Havel is, in short, a classic representative of the new Croatian conservatism. He does not like postmodernism, liberalism and multiculturalism, he does not like Western European libertine influences. He cares about "identity", about "our way of life".

- Dans (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dans (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participants so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment seems self-promotional, I might look at his citation index factor, but I can't access the resources to do so. Leaning delete, based on the limited discussion above. Oaktree b (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's pretty dismal, see here. --Randykitty (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that, Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 00:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found this recent MA thesis on Havel's work on Islam https://zir.nsk.hr/islandora/object/aukos:497 from the University in Osijek. Also Washington Post cited him on Middle Eastern topic (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/22/the-murky-story-behind-netanyahus-claim-of-a-palestinian-role-in-the-holocaust/). He seems relevant. Based on that, do not delete. His bibliography should be expanded to include recent work, including English texts cited in WP, MA thesis. Arslan Arie (talk) 10:10, 30 September 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. Most "delete" !votes have a strong policy-based rationale, but while some "keep" !votes are nothing more than "I like it", several others are also policy based. Hence, there is currently no consensus to delete this list. Several participants remark on the presence of much unnecessary detail, so strict editing seems needed.. However, that is not a reason to delete but to improve the article. No prejudice to another nomination once the pruning has been done and the list is still perceived to be unencyclopedic. Randykitty (talk) 10:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who home video releases[edit]

List of Doctor Who UMD releases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Massive promo page. Fails WP:NOT, WP:DEL4, and per WP:DEL14. Complete advertisement. scope_creep^Talk 14:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, its too promotional. Agletarang (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would agree with the above. There are other places where the issue of Doctor Who home video releases can be covered in more appropriate detail (ie in the individual season/story/episode articles) and in an informative way. I do not think a list is the way to do this. Equally, I would not that if this is deleted then I would suggest that the futures of the related List of Doctor Who UMD releases, List of Doctor Who videotape releases and List of Doctor Who Laserdisc releases should probably discussed as well. Dunarc (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think List of Doctor Who UMD releases should be included on this Afd, as it doesn't have a single proper reference. scope_creep^Talk 22:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has only come up because the list article (which has been in its present format for years) was split through this consensus Talk:List of Doctor Who home video releases#Splitting proposal. It is in no way shape or form a promo page. It states facts about each formats release. The use of Amazon for past release dates is permitted here WP:RSPAMAZON. For a show that has been on (with occasional gaps) for nearly 60 years the home media list articles are preferable to forcing readers to search through 100's of articles for each individual story. MarnetteD|Talk 00:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MarnetteD. Say what you will about the existence and/or quality of the list, but this is absolutely not a "complete advertisement", and such an accusation threatens to discredit the reputation of every single editor across its almost 18-year history—though, if this were the intention, it would be unsurprising, considering the nominator's recent false accusations of paid editing, ignorance of consensus, misuse of CSD, and misunderstanding of Wikipedia essays. – Rhain ☔ 01:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see this is a commercial, it not written as a promotion for anything. Has 770 references. Dream Focus 07:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And what about 80 odd links to Amazon that makes it effectively a shop front for that company, on Wikipedia. And the List of Doctor Who UMD releases which is all Amazon references. scope_creep^Talk 07:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: A crucial point you're ignoring is that the article has 770 references. 80 of those being Amazon is less than 10%. (Mind you, it looks like there are more than 80, but it's still less than one-third anyway.) Per WP:AMAZON and WP:RSPAMAZON, they are being used to cite titles and release dates. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 07:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity isn't a metric in any domain, only quality of the references is, so that is not an argument. So far I've seen lots of discussion yesterday about the fact many editors have added these in and the intent is not to promote a product. But the effect is to promote these products. The overall effect. The intent may not be there but that is what the effect on the ground is. You have 80+ links, now that is 80 product page links. That is more you would find in average shop of somebody selling t-shirts. When the WP:RSPAMAZON guideline was drawn up, the intent was never to have something that completly subverts the five pillars and Wikipedia Terms of Use. WP is designed to be free at the point of delivery and have somebody endanger it with articles like this; that is completly beyond the pale. There is no argument you can make, "ah sorry gov, we never meant it" is completly missing the point, disengenous and reckless and outside consensus. That is the result. And its typicaly a fancruft argument, that somehow yous are outside consensus, because its something special, its a Dr Who who. Dr Who fans, including myself, I come from the UK, do not need a Amazon shop front on Wikipedia to prove a particular string of machine data is valid to the extent that it endangers Wikipedia. Its not done anywhere else, and shouldn't be done here. scope_creep^Talk 08:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If "quantity isn't a metric", why do you keep bringing up the "80 odd links"? Considering the fact that the majority of links on the article are not Amazon, I still find the argument that this is an "Amazon shop front" impossible to accept. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 08:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you do, the fancruft folk are all of the same mentality. None of them are involved in ethically trying to uphold good practice, merely interesting in listing the information like blind moles having the need to dig a tunnel, "we need to do all costs, don't stop lads", with no compunction to standards. In the last two months, I have had cycle folk bare face lying through their teeth as did the radio folk to preserve their approach to work, chess folk who were of a similar mentality and couldn't accept what they were doing was outside consensus and the railyway folk who think it was ok to create reams of railway stations articles with no references. Simply copying the information from one place to another with no historical analysis in a similar manner to this article. No value added. What is the point of it. I know if has value to the Dr Who fan, but does that mean Wikipedia must be subverted to satisfy them. scope_creep^Talk 08:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, scope. I could tell yesterday that you were bad at assuming good faith, but "None of them are involved in ethically trying to uphold good practice" (followed by a rant) is a new low. How about you try to focus on the content, rather than the character of the editors? Thanks. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are experiences at Afd and other venues in the last 2-3 months and are observations. I'm not trying to covert you, because your unconvertible. I'm trying to persuade the audience.scope_creep^Talk 09:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this needs repeating but, per the policy guideline, "Amazon is a reliable source for basic information about a work (such as release date, ISBN, etc.)" Also if your experiences at AFD are leading you to violate WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA policies it might be a good thing to step away from them for a bit. I have seen 1000s of AFDs in my time and violating those two policies does not "persuade" the audience. MarnetteD|Talk 09:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. The lists are predominantly sourced by links to venues to purchase the releases on video/DVD (such as Amazon). It's not encyclopedic to list each and every single release on home media one can ever own. Also we have recently pretty much established a precedent for lists such as these:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Only Fools and Horses home video releases

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Coronation Street home video releases

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arthur and Postcards from Buster home video releases

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Guild Home Video and Pathé releases

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Blue's Clues home video releases

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of X-Men (TV series) video releases. Ajf773 (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added List of Doctor Who UMD releases into Afd as well, as it hasn't got a single redeeming feature. Its all Amazon references, primary and non-rs. scope_creep^Talk 17:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UMD article refs have been replaced, with mostly secondary refs (and none from Amazon, not that it really matters). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 06:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's certainly notable enough and I don't see merit to the advertisement argument. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Rhain and MarnetteD Etron81 (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addresses the primary problem with your advertising article and merely stating keep isn't going to cut the mustard, because as soon as goes to a no-consensus vote, I plan to repost it back to Afd. If that not effective then its arbcom. scope_creep^Talk 21:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So if you don't get things your way, you're going to ignore recommendations and keep trying until you do? Bold assertion. ArbCom is incredibly overkill for this matter. Terms such as "your advertising article" are not only unhelpful but incorrect, and seem to imply that Etron is both the article "owner" (not true) and a paid editor (not true). – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't imply that at all. I recognise there has been some movement in the work that has been done fix the UMD article and I really gladly welcome it, so perhaps there is an intent to change your part. I sincerly hope you do give a toss as a group and somehow it will be fixed. I do intend to find all the Doctor Who articles and review all of them and get them onto the NPP queue so they are more eyes looking at them. Any that I do find, that are choked with advertising links to Amazon or any shop, are going to Afd or will redirected. You will have fight on your hands and it will inveitably end up at Arbcom scope_creep^Talk 08:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rhain and MarnetteD . Christian75 (talk) 19:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you stating keep when this type of information is explicity prohibited by WP:NOTDIRECTORY and and whole think is an advertisement. scope_creep^Talk 22:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems like a useful list to me. ButterCashier (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your a self-confessed Dr Who fan and work in that areas, so your coming from a fancruft angle and not offering anything that makes Wikipedia better, merely repeating the same tired statements. This list can be stored anywhere on the web, it is useful, but it doesn't need to be on Wikipedia. It can stored in any Dr Who game pedia. scope_creep^Talk 12:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You will need a better reason other than WP:USEFUL. Ajf773 (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we please get some comments that are not fancruft led. scope_creep^Talk 12:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE, WP:PROMOTION. Amazon is not a reliable source and doesn't pretend to be. Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability states that "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Amazon fails that. It often gets dates wrong. Amazon's main purpose is to sell, not to inform. And per WP:NOTDATABASE -To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. A lot of the other links in the article seem to come from Doctor Who's website. As a result, this feels like nothing more than a promotional page serving as transactional sales for Amazon. I think this information could be useful but I think it's best left to the fan sites. We aren't here to sell; we're here to edit.Wozal (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Use of Amazon for confirming release dates appears to be acceptable per WP:AMAZON and as this appears to be the backbone of the nominator's argument, the rationale seems very weak. There is also contextual information here (the article isn't just tables) and thus I don't believe WP:NOTDIRECTORY has been violated. And no, I don't watch Doctor Who. NemesisAT (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LISTN Lightburst (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate on that? Just stating LISTN doesn't mean much. Ajf773 (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - note to closing administrator - I closed the discussion and left an extensive rationale. However after a good faith request to undo my close by the AFD nominator, I have undone for an administrator to review. MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete disagree about it being promotional at all, Amazon can and is being used as an appropriate reference. The information presented is in too much detail and doesn't provide encyclopedic value. Runtimes, every time an episode was released, and every country, isn't notable. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Too much detail sounds like a reason to edit the article to remove said detail, not to delete the article entirely. NemesisAT (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the detail is removed then it wouldn't be long enough for a standalone article and just kept at the main and season articles. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 10:03, 12 September 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. czar 15:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Julien[edit]

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

Google News turns up only one or two passing mentions, and a flat-out Google search turns up a NYT obituary and really nothing else except ancestry records. Couldn't find any in-depth discussion in reliable independent published sources, does not qualify as notable per any SSG, does not appear to meet WP:GNG. A loose necktie (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The NYT obit (free access here) is a solid GNG-qualifying source, and there's also a 300-word obit in the New York Law Journal, Jan. 9, 1989—unfortunately it's behind the LexisNexis paywall, but I'd be happy to email a copy to anyone who'd like one. Furthermore, it appears that Julien is discussed at considerable length in this book: although I haven't been able to find a copy myself, the reviews indicate that he's one of just five people profiled in it. I'll see if I can find any more sources in the morning, but regardless I think there's enough here to satisfy the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Another point: there are a fair number of reviews of Julien on Summation (here and here) and Opening Statements (here, here, and pg. 647 and following here), so the possibility of a WP:NAUTHOR pass is also worth considering. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is long precedent to keep articles on individuals with obituaries in major newspapers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added citations, information and an award section, to support keeping the page. Additionally, he is quoted and cited by his peers. This lawyer was called the "best trial lawyer in New York" in a mock trial against Melvin Belli at a renowned law school, by a fellow lawyer who wrote about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FalconMillenium (talk • contribs) 02:39, 8 September 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. There is a clear consensus that the term "progressive" is too nebulous to define for purposes of a coherent list. BD2412 T 05:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive politicians in the United States[edit]

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

The term progressive is hard to define and is in most cases subjective. While things like membership in a progressive caucus or in a political party is easy to define and leaves little to no room for original research, whether or not someone is progressive is open to interpretation. Justi yaya 14:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and United States of America. Justi yaya 14:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Progress-ive is subjective. Today vs tomorrow etc. Lightburst (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There already exists Congressional Progressive Caucus#Membership and "progressive" is inherently subjective. Fails WP:NLIST. --Enos733 (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the term being hard to define doesn't mean it's not used in reliable sources. If reliable sources use it to describe people they can be listed here. Progressive politicians could be in different parts of the government like the Senate or local and state legislatures, and the CPC is only the U.S. house Andre🚐 18:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible to determine that a person X has been described by NBC, NYT etc as progressive. Such information often belongs in those politicians' respective articles. But labeling someone in a list as progressive in wiki voice, without qualification, is a gross oversimplification.... Ovinus (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term "progressive" is too nebulous to warrant a standalone list like this one. It also may amount to improper synthesis of different sources; what if one source calls X progressive and another doesn't? I'm also not certain of an NLIST pass. Sure, people talk about progressivism as a whole, but do reliable sources publish and discuss "lists of progressive politicians"? (If they did, then synthesis concerns might be lessened.) Ovinus (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of Congressional Progressive Caucus members already exists, and the remainder constitutes original research based on a subjective label. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of people that can be applied a label which has had political currency since the turn of the 20th century all the way up until now, with shifting ideas and platforms? Yeah, bad idea, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE risk, would essentially be a category with possibly thousands of entries. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely inappropriate WP:SYNTH. Not all people who support progressive legislation should be lumped together into just one "progressive" category; not to mention there's also the Progressive Era. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our guidelines for inclusion. Also WP:SYNTH. Bruxton (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Procedural close. Nominated by sockpuppet and no editor voiced support for this nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somashekhar SP[edit]

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

I don't think the article satisfies WP:SIGCOV. Most of the references either self published journals or non reliable websites. And thus does not meet WP:GNG. However i am not considering that this article is created by a blocked (sock) user. Twisterdel (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, Medicine, and India. Twisterdel (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 4 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 12:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Radyo Bandera Sweet FM Jimalalud[edit]

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

Subject was originally moved to draftspace, but re-created by the creator Boombastic061.

I am also nominating the following page under the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody can locate reliable source evidence that either of these stations actually originated at least some of their own programming and weren't just relays of a parent service. That's the notability condition under WP:BCAST that has failed to be shown here. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as WP:TOOSOON. Both fail WP:BCAST and WP:GNG. SBKSPP (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clear, and there is no reason to expect that relisting would yeild a consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 05:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slovak National Catholic Church[edit]

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

I cannot find any centered reliable secondary source to establish that this alleged organisation meets WP:GNG (WP:NCHURCH). There is a clear lack of notability.
The previous PROD was opposed, with the opposing user stating the WP:PASSING mentions on Google Scholar were a proof of notability. Obviously, it is not (WP:GNG: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material".).
Therefore, this article should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep but tag for improvements -- This is about a denomination, not a mere local church. This is a stub, with no indication of the number of congregations, but I note there are enough to have a bishop. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how this article could be improved, since no source discusses it enough to say anything worthwhile. Besides, the article has already been tagged with a Template:Unreferenced for more than 3 months. Veverve (talk) 14:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know as well as I do that that doesn't mean anything. Anyway, I have just added three references. St Anselm (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: we generally (but not always) keep denominations - even ones much, much, smaller. But it looks like we do, in fact, have sources providing significant coverage. There are lots of GBooks results, it's just that they are almost all in snippet view. E.g. [13][14][15][16] St Anselm (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:PASSING. Veverve (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so - particularly the first one, which has eight pages with the phrase. St Anselm (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That source is a dissertation (implied at least, but stated as such here). Would it good to use per WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Eh, hard to say when we can't read it... but 8 pages on 500+ pages isn't spectacular. Still, if you can request it by ILL, you ought to do so. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a published dissertation, which is completely different. St Anselm (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are also the references in the Eugene Magyar article, including a NYT obituary. St Anselm (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are tons of sources. I've added some of them. All it takes is a bit of research. Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noel S McFerran: what you did is textbook WP:OVERCOME. All the sources you gave that I can be read online contain only WP:PASSING mentions; the exception is the The encyclopedia of American Catholic history which only has a short notice. Veverve (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not require that all sources "can be read online". An article entitled "The Slovak National Catholic Church, Passaic, New Jersey, and the Jeczusko Affair" is clearly specifically about this topic. An article in The Encyclopedia of American Catholic History about the "Slovak National Catholic Church" is specifically about this topic. Why would it be appropriate for The Encyclopedia of American Catholic History to cover this topic, but for Wikipedia to ignore it? WP:OVERCOME is "an essay on notability. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." The same is true of WP:PASSING. WP:NPOV is more than that; it is a "guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia and The Encyclopedia of American Catholic History probably have a different standards of inclusion. 6 sentences is not an article, but an entry. With professional historians likely incorporating archival information, clippings, parish histories, and a dearth of other resources at their disposal and not ours (online or not), their coverage begins with a statement that the data is "sketchy at best." It's not WP:SIGCOV. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete as does not meet notability. The quality of coverage needed has not been found. Not by a longshot. Nor is it strongly suggested to exist in offline sources. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "quality of the coverage", do you mean that it isn't significant coverage? Or is the quality of the source, that it isn't a reliable source? Either way, what's wrong with the Encyclopedia of American Catholic History reference? St Anselm (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So a 6-sentence entry in a Catholic encyclopedia, which covers so many Catholic topics, is significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV? Not quite. It is tertiary, not secondary. Is it reliable? Likely, though with no sources listed, we aren't pointed to other sources. It's an OK source, but it's not a great one, as it does not list its own sources.

Roughly half of the text of the article as now is on individual parishes with coverage of their existence. One of the references is to a footnote. Some others are to similarly brief mentions. The snippet views don't appear to have very much more significant information, though maybe one or more has something. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the 4 sources uncovered by StAnselm, all published books, which together are enough imo. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability is demonstrated by the sourced identified. Thparkth (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources book coverage identified in this discussion so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Philimon Peter[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. No real secondary sourcing. Not one in the block. They are profiles, primary and sps sources, passing mentions. scope_creep^Talk 10:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete not meeting WP:GNG. --2600:6C50:7E00:400:346E:7B56:2AB8:7FB9 (talk) 14:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: IP 2600:6C50:7E00:400:346E:7B56:2AB8:7FB9 started editing on 4 September. Total of edits to date are 'delete' comments on four AfDs. This is suspicious. David notMD (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Breeze Brewin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSINGER. Obscure musician. References are PR and interviews. Fails WP:SIGCOV. No social media, no streaming. scope_creep^Talk 09:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Shellwood (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think he was poised for release in 2015, then appears to have fizzled out. [17] is about the best I could find, and it's only a passing mention of a musical act he was in. Nothing else found. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 4 September 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. BD2412 T 05:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of clubs and organizations at California State University, Sacramento[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. This article provides little to no context and seems to serve as an extension of promotional material for clubs at CSU - Sacramento. Throughout the article, a reference is used only twice. One is to Facebook. The other is a broken link to finding a club at CSU. Wozal (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Lists, United States of America, and California. Wozal (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simple case of WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly WP:NOTDIR. TheodoreIndiana (talk) 13:29, 5 September 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. czar 19:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Color garden[edit]

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

Created in 2006 with no sources. Tagged for sources in 2019. Still unsourced. There's no indication of notability for a standalone article and I have not found any relevant sources to support this article. Delete, or merge to Garden, Garden design, or similar. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to "Monochromatic garden" – a Google search for the latter term turns up plenty of usable references. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This previously unsourced article now has inline citations to 11 sources and almost twice as many words as it did when it was nominated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Monochromatic garden. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:00, 4 September 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 Biddle football, 1910–1919 now that the article has finally been started. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1915 Biddle football team[edit]

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

No evidence that a one or possibly two game season was notable when what we have amounts to a cancellation notice, a game report and a database.

I actually think a redirect to Johnson_C._Smith_Golden_Bulls_and_Lady_Golden_Bulls#Football would be fine, but since the PROD was contested I'm bringing it here for larger discussion. Star Mississippi 01:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Sports, and American football. Star Mississippi 01:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to and create Biddle football, 1910–1919, which would probably be the best way to cover the short seasons of the 1910s J. C. Smith Golden Bulls. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to and create Biddle football, 1910–1919 per BeanieFan11. Cbl62 (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems to be the right choice here, not only as WP:N (which would be enough) but also as an editing choice per essay WP:CFBSEASON.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to and create Biddle football, 1910–1919, I'm with BeanieFan and Cbl, it seems to make the most sense. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above Sportsfangnome (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Articles can only be merged to existing articles. If you want a merge, please create this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Biddle football, 1910–1919: The above arguments convince me that a merger would be the appropriate course of action. Given that the appropriate article does not exist, let's make it exist. A page move would also have the nice side-effect of decreasing the number of ((copied)) templates at Talk:Biddle football, 1910–1919 by one. House Blaster^talk 20:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we only need 1 ((copied)) total, at the 1912 Biddle football team article. Bundle it along in this AfD? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same comment. We can't merge an article to a nonexistent page. In the absent of an existing Merge target, I'd have to go with the nominator's suggestion to redirect this article. And it's too late to bundle another article into this nomination which should be done at the onset of a discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Biddle football, 1910–1919 per HouseBlaster, or as a second choice delete due to the apparent lack of notability of this one- or two-game football season. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Biddle football, 1910–1919, and then if there is subsequent consensus to do so, the 1912 Biddle football team and 1914 Biddle football team can be merged there as well. This essentially amounts to the same thing as what was being suggested by the "merge and create" !votes above. Rlendog (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no more relisting. WP:RELISTINGISEVIL - we have a snowball decision. Please ignore all rules and just do it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment for closer. I am fine with this as a solution to no existing merger target. Star Mississippi 15:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have started Biddle football, 1910–1919. I apologize for being so late in doing this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:44, 6 September 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 consensus seems to be that it would be better to start fresh with a new draft of this article subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tello UAV[edit]

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

Written like an advertisement. This is a product; it doesn't seem notable enough to have its own article. Nythar^T^.^C 03:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Nythar^T^.^C 03:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not written like an advertisement. It literally only states what it is. Upon a google search, this drone model seems to have a lot of writing about it, likely notable. Nominator should come up with better arguments rather than the lazy "doesn't seem notable".--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the user account above me is 3 days old and has made only 31 other edits. Also, look into the page history. Nythar^T^.^C 16:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i see the edit history. Still the article as it was when you nominated it, was not an ad. Also your account is barely 3 months old...--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging both users. I returned the old version. Nythar^T^.^C 19:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does sound like an advertisement. Then again it is incredibly difficult to write about a product without making it sound like an advertisement. A good product sells its self. Not saying that this drone is a good product but hypothetically if it was a flawless product then a wikipedia article about it will function as advertising no matter how it is written. This can be lessened by adding more information about the drone such as analysis by others and their criticisms of this particular design if they exist. Also the wording of the article can be changed to sound less like an advertisement by delivering the same information in a more neutral tone and perhaps by excluding some of the information about how it compares to other drones on the market if that information is cited from the company themselves.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basically all the sections that cite directly to material from Ryze Robotics should be stripped down to just basic factual specifications of the drone that are in now way opinionated.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article's history is a whole mess, even since it was pretty much blanked. There were sources previously, but it would cause more edit wars to revert it to how it was. Asparagusus (interaction) 17:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are press releases. It's a drone model, one of many. No substantial coverage in google beyond sales listings. GNG is far off, way off. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with WP:TNT. This needs to be rewritten from reliable, secondary sources, which are not currently in the article. It's easy to write about products without it sounding like an advertisement as long as you're writing from reviews and not press releases. If this article topic is resubmitted, it should be through Articles for Creation so it can be reviewed. czar 19:23, 10 September 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 04:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ganga Mang Rahi Balidan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Sources are mostly just listings in databases. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 4 September 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 04:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ek Aur Ek Gyarah (1981 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Sources are mostly just listings in databases. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 4 September 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 04:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waqt Ke Shehzade[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Sources are mostly just listings in databases. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 4 September 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 04:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kanch Ki Gudiya[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Sources are mostly just listings in databases. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 4 September 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 04:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sweety (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Sources are mostly just listings in databases. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 4 September 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 04:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sumbandh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Sources are mostly just listings in databases. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 4 September 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 04:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sugandh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Sources are mostly just listings in databases. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 4 September 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 04:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bi Sheng (crater)[edit]

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

This lunar crater does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO, coverage seems to consist exclusively of passing mentions in relation to the crater being named in 2010, with no studies available on Google Scholar. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:12, 4 September 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 Nippon Ichi Software. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Takehito Harada[edit]

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. For some reason the only independent section in the article is about the subject's fictional character they created, which takes up almost all of the prose. The only sources listed here are either WP:BLPPRIMARY or WP:BLPSPS. Sparkl^talk 03:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Video games, Visual arts, and Anime and manga. Sparkl^talk 03:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nippon Ichi unless better sources can be found. He is mostly best known as being their main artist for many of their games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do we do with his character, which is non-biographical content that comprises most of the article? Merge that into Nippon Ichi or leave it out?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 04:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nippon Ichi. I agree, it seems that the info in this article belongs in the company's article, since this person sadly doesn't seem notable. --Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 04:14, 4 September 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!} 04:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terenc Pepa[edit]

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

Notability unclear. Little to no coverage in English sources as far as I can tell, but there could be more in his native language? KH-1 (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Albania. KH-1 (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't see anything useful in a Google search (although I was only able to look at English-language sources, so it's possible, as the nom says, that there's more in his native language). --Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Premier League 2022[edit]

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

Delhi Premier League 2022'

Unsourced article, so failing verifiability, about a football season that does not have enough information to be encyclopedic as of 4 September 2022. One copy of the article, with no references, was created by the originator, and was then properly moved to draft space by User:Spiderone. The originator then created another copy in article space, with no references. The originator then tagged the two copies for an unnecessary history merge. What is needed is to delete the copy in article space and leave the draft standing so that references can be added, as well as including the results of matches after the matches are played. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, and Delhi. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article has now been moved again, this time to 2022–23 Delhi Premier League. 4 sources have been added, none of which show WP:SIGCOV although at least they do verify the existence of the league. If this were submitted at AfC in its current state, it would surely still be declined. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Robert McClenon @Spiderone Unaware of this Afd since the notice was removed from the page by the originator. I have added more info about the season and added few more refs from reliable sources (apart from those 4 refs) to meet WP:GNG. Let me know if verifiability issue still persists. Dhruv edits (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dhruv edits the coverage cited is some Twitter posts and some routine announcements of the league starting on 15 July 2022, all of which contain the same content. Have you got any significant coverage of the league while it has progressed? We're 13 games into the league so, if it's notable, there would be detailed coverage from reputable Indian media of the matches that have already taken place that we can cite? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The editor who removed the AFD tag has been warned. As User:Spiderone and User:GiantSnowman have noted, there are still notability issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - since nobody has been able to provide significant coverage of this season as it progresses, I believe that the article should be deleted. Please delete 2022–23 Delhi Premier League as well as Delhi Premier League 2022. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 6 September 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 Rogers State University#Media. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Hillpost[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable collegiate newspaper. No WP:SIGCOV outside of an article in a hyper-local newspaper ([18]) seems to exist. Likely created as a vanity page judging by the LinkedIn link as well, but that is beyond the point. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NNEWSPAPER. Curbon7 (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Oklahoma. Curbon7 (talk) 02:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rogers_State_University#Media where it may warrant a mention alongside the campus TV and radio station. Even if there are one or two reliable independent sources directly about this newspaper (and not, for instance, about people who happened to write for the paper in college), I can't see more than a paragraph being warranted without descending into promotion or trivia, and it makes sense to keep it with the college. Not everything verifiable belongs in an encyclopedia per WP:VNOTSUFF, even if a topic warranted its own stand-alone article. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Rogers State University#Media, since it's not currently mentioned there, but does probably warrant a mention. Agree that this student newspaper does not pass GNG, as Claremore, Oklahoma is a small town of less than 20,000 inhabitants its local media almost certainly does not have the resources to be a reliable source. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne Blunt[edit]

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

I fail to see how Blunt is actually notable under WP:NACTOR, her roles are all one-off, mostly uncredited/unnamed, as in single appearances and certainly nothing that's received meaningful coverage and she isn't notable as a blogger or model. Perhaps it's too soon, perhaps she will never be notable but this is basically a filler resume that has no place on WP. PRAXIDICAE🌈 10:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Kansas. Shellwood (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a lack of significant independant coverage to meet WP:GNG. There are some interviews, but most of the sources referenced regarding "international attention" for instance are just a passing mention of her. Beyond WP:NACTOR, certainly doesn't meet WP:MUSICIAN either. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Radio Disney My Dream series, where Blunt is the complete cast, has "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Her other roles described are not mostly uncredited/unnamed (22 of 23 are credited and named), and many are on major networks (e.g., Disney, Nickelodeon, ABC, Fox) on shows that also receive significant coverage. A hiatus was taken while Blunt attended college. She graduated from Georgetown University in 2019. Attention was apparently given to this page when we began to update her site with recent credits for directing, acting and her work as an influencer for numerous national and international brands including Giorgio Armani, Revolve, Estee Lauder, Prada and Savage XZ Fenty. We would hope to get the chance to make these updates and continue to have Wikipedia as a source of information on Daphne. Wiki1289 (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Please allow updates. Wiki1289 (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wiki1289, thank you for your comments. Firstly though, I wanted to flag that I've left a message on your talk page asking you to confirm if you have any connection to the subject, as it sounded like a potential WP:COI. In any case, which would you say are the WP:THREE most significant independant sources? What is Blunt's input to the My Dream series? Was she was writer/producer, or just the cast member? I got the impression it was a scripted series. Also WP:PLEASEDONT isn't a valid argument on AfD as what matters is what sourcing exists to show notability (as per WP:NEXIST), not what is currently on the article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. First, let me say that this page has been up for five years and previously passed all scrutiny. Now that I am attempting to update it with new activity and sources, this discussion has been initiated. Second, I do have an "external relationship" with the subject of the page; I am not being paid. Third, the three most significant independent sources would be IMDB, The Hollywood Reporter and CBS. I agree that sourcing needs to be updated, which is what I was attempting to do. Blunt was the only cast member for the My Dream series, not a writer/producer. It was a scripted series. IMDB lists all of her acting credits, which are not insignificant. There are new things to add, most recently her appearance in the Olivier Tree "Cowboys Don't Cry" music video and poster/billboards for his world tour. https://store.olivertreemusic.com/products/cowboy-tears-cd-hand-initialed-poster She is also in the top 10% of social influencers according to FOHR, even though it suggested otherwise in this discussion. My initial initial changes this week were summarily undone even though the deletion discussion notice says "please feel free to improve this article" while the discussion is underway. Wiki1289 (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It being an WP:OLDARTICLE just may mean that no-one had gotten around to assessing it before now against today's notability guidelines. The reason I asked about if she was a writer/producer was to determine if WP:NCREATIVE was relavent, but it sounds like WP:NACTOR is the relavent clause to consider here, or at least WP:ANYBIO. For the sources, IMDB isn't considered a WP:RELIABLE source on Wikipedia, as per WP:IMDB, and the https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/radio-disney-air-scripted-serial-25059/ article only mentions her in passing. Would you be able to provide a link to the CBS source? As the one on the page seems to be broken unfortunately. I don't think appearing in a music video or being on posters, etc. counts much for notability unless there are independant sources that discuss it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Would you be able to point to the FOHR reference too, in case that can help the case for notability? -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There were many articles about the premier of My Dream, since it was novel that Disney was putting out a radio serial.https://web.archive.org/web/20100703190256/http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/story/2010/06/29/radio-disney.html https://www.rbr.com/radio-disney-to-debut-radio-play-my-dream/ https://web.archive.org/web/20120309030028/http://news.muzi.com/news/ll/english/10101558.shtml?cc=10005 https://www.news24.com/News24/Disney-revives-the-radio-serial-20100628. This and her other work on Disney, Nickelodeon ABC would seem to meet the WP:NACTOR requirement: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The work speaks for itself. Here is the FOHR link: https://app.fohr.co/daphneblunt?key=e6e843866b5393c76b1054d17ee2147f Her TikTok presence is several times larger than reported here, so her standing has likely risen. https://www.tiktok.com/@daphneblunt_?_t=8V1m7wwtqSh&_r=1. Thanks Wiki1289 (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just notice that My Dream and Blunt are included in the Wikipedia Radio Disney page. Radio Disney Wiki1289 (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SAG/AFTRA credited roles over 10 year period WP:NACTOR Raylan McCrae (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)— Raylan McCrae (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I don't think social media stats count much towards Wikipedia notability, unless there is some independant coverage of them. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FOHR is basically a linked in page for actors, we can't use it for notability. Her roles seem minor/trivial, certainly not a major role. She was not the principal cast member in any of them you've listed from what I could see. None of these help support notability and almost prove that GNG hasn't been met. Oaktree b (talk) 02:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki1289 is also the author of the photo used in her article, I'd strongly suspect COI. Oaktree b (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete falls short of meeting WP:NACTOR. Not convinced that the roles are notable, also not seeing SIGCOV.-KH-1 (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I give credited work in SAG tv or film presumption of being notable
Dotb9 (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)— Dotb9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Being in the union isn't notable. You pay, you are a union member. Oaktree b (talk) 02:44, 4 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!} 18:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being in the union isn't a sign of wiki notability. Pay and you are a member. Beyond trivial pieces showing the parties she's attended, I see nothing to support keeping the article; mostly has bit parts in TV shows and the rest isn't useful for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 02:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Rostand[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Businessman BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - coverage is largely interview-based or WP:ROUTINE profile pieces. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:09, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources used are scant mentions of him, I've looked at the French wiki article; it's largely un-sourced and uses brief quotes of him offering what amount to sound bytes for various articles, otherwise unrelated to him. Nothing of substance and nothing to support GNG. This is a beefed up linked in profile. Oaktree b (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. This article, as Oaktree b said, is basically a LinkedIn profile. BilletsMauves^€500 11:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not having much of a claim of significance either. A redirect to the company he works with is also fine by me. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gazipur Cantonment Board High School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Second nomination for this page. Previous AfD here.

As with the previous nomination, the article was in the draft space in early August, where it was rejected for AfC three times ([19], [20], [21]). The author then re-created it in the mainspace on 3 September without addressing any changes from the AfC rejections.

As with the previous nomination, this fails WP:NSCHOOL as it meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:ORG, and I'm unable to find any significant, independent reliable secondary coverage of the school. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, non notable school per WP:NSCHOOL —MdsShakil (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable, written like an advert. SparklingSnail (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extraterrestrism[edit]

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

A Google search at this moment shows one hit for the word "extraterrestrism" on the entire Internet, which is a weblog in Spanish that defines the term (when translated) as "in reality there are two species of aliens responsible for artificially creating two other [species of aliens]", which has nothing to do with the content of this Wikipedia article. There's nothing in Google Books or Google Scholar. The citations provided for the article don't show any sign that this is a real thing (at least not in the sense that there is a religion called Extraterrestrism - UFO religions in general do exist, which is what the link YouTube link shows, but the citations don't show those UFO religions existing under this name or in the format postulated in the article). Note that one of the five citations in this article shows that UFO religions exist in general, and the other four of the five citations show not that Extraterrestrism exists, but show only that some religions have a concept of multiple worlds - although even these citations look pretty bad, since they are from publishers like Notion Press - which is a self-publishing company, and the book from Notion was written by someone who appears to have a tenuous connection to reality. As it is, this appears to be a neologism for "UFO Religion", and even a redirect to UFO Religion would be incorrect, as the word doesn't really exist. --Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UFO religions 100% exists. They are religions which acknowledge extraterrestrial existence. The reason for the term not being used on the internet is because Extraterrestrism is a new religion and religious movement . RileyXeon (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I acknowledge in my AfD, above, that UFO religions exist ("UFO religions in general do exist"). However, "Extraterrestrism" is what I'm saying doesn't exist. --Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extraterrestrism does exist because I am the founder of it RileyXeon (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at WP:COI (especially WP:COISELF) and WP:NOT (especially WP:FORUM). --Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

COI is a concern, simply because you can't write about something you yourself are involved with. Oaktree b (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I thought you said "UFO religions in general doesn't exist" RileyXeon (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't reach Wikipedia expectations then I am fine with it being removed RileyXeon (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and Religion. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources used aren't even about the subject of the article; it appears to be strung together using small bits of references to other subjects to draw conclusions that aren't there. COI is a big concern, and I don't see notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as nominator. This is something non-notable that was made up by the creator of the article, and that creator has said that it's all right to delete it if it doesn't meet WP's standards.. --Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You guys can remove it now if you want RileyXeon (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if i've coursed a mess RileyXeon (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't done anything terrible. Just make sure to read over the policies that the other users linked to, and maybe the core content policies as well. Wikipedia is for topics that have already achieved notability in the news or in professional academic research. If you're interested in putting some time into learning how to use Wikipedia, you can go to Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user to find a user that can help. You can also go to the Wikipedia:Teahouse if you have any questions about editing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete – I'll second that. This article is little short of a hoax. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and unverified. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:54, 4 September 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.