< January 18	January 20 >

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 TGI Fridays#International as a valid ATD. Star Mississippi 01:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries with TGI Fridays franchises[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT, contested PROD Taking Out The Trash (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into TGI Fridays. It's not as if the parent article is particularly long. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I had this page on my watchlist because the article creator mentioned that they were going to add more than primary sources later and I wanted to see if maybe they were able to find something I couldn't. As far as I can tell, these sources don't really exist. We're not a business directory. It might be worth taking a look at other lists in this template. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly trivial. Surely if I were going to Guam (very unlikely) and wanted to know if there was a TGI Friday restaurant there (even less likely), the last place I would look would be this article. Athel cb (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proper text into TGI Fridays#International No cause for breaking this out into its own article, or making it a spreadsheet, when a continent store count in the article communicates it more succinctly. Nate • (chatter) 22:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. LISTCRUFT, badly sourced and will always be outdated/unreliable. 31.187.2.233 (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with reservations (no pun intended) per Nate et al. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into TGI Fridays#International, no article length issues would arise. Mooonswimmer 00:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with TGI Fridays#International would be the best solution. TH1980 (talk) 02:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see how merging such an elaborate mostly primary sourced (42 out of 44 counts as one) thus not notable list article would benefit TGI Fridays#International. -- Otr500 (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into TGI Fridays#International. We don't need to know the exact number of locations, just countries with at least one location. That can be easily covered in a single paragraph rather than a dedicated list article. Ajf773 (talk) 09:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into TGI Fridays#InternationalPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chen-K[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG with the article pretty much propped up by a single user and until more recently a WP:SPA one. John Yunshire (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. John Yunshire (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just promotional page, doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:SINGER too. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While Chen-K seems to be a relatively accomplished rapper in Pakistan judging by certain numbers (views on Youtube for example, and yes, I'm aware that is not a valid metric) and is definitely not a "nobody", there is virtually no independent, secondary coverage to help the subject meet WP:GNG or anything that helps him fulfill WP:MUSICIAN. Mooonswimmer 23:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mooonswimmer. There is evidence of fame, but lack of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AxiCorp[edit]

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

No evidence of notability under WP:CORP or any other notability guideline. Citations in present and past versions have been self-cites, press releases or unreliable sources. A WP:BEFORE shows some passing mentions of AxiCorp, and some punditry from a staff member, but nothing substantive about the company itself. Concerns about the company not fixed in six years; no reasonable prospect of organic improvement in the normal course of editing. Previously declined PROD, though without the article being fixed. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, with multiple independent third-party RSes actually about the company itself - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, and Australia. David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article relies solely on primary sources as is. A google search came back with promotional news articles (#1 #2), an article with a passing mention of Axi (was mainly about a staff member) and a sponsorship agreement with a premier league soccer club. No WP:SIGCOV (in particularly from secondary sources) and fails WP:CORP. - GA Melbourne (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant secondary, independent coverage. There are a few articles in Finance Magnates (1, 2) and FinanceFeeds (1, 2), but I wouldn't consider these solid, reliable sources. Other than that, only passing mentions. Mooonswimmer 23:44, 20 January 2023 (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!} 23:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket World[edit]

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

The article is written mainly from primary sources. Looking through Google all I could find were about buying copies of the magazine and a YouTube video on the magazine. I don't think the magazine is notable enough for inclusion. RPI2026F1 (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Video games. RPI2026F1 (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All my searches of it had no resaults of the newspaper, like the nom said it was people selling the newspaper.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 15:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete virtually no coverage, non-notable. The magazine was supposedly established in 2000 and continued publishing until 2015, so it's not as if most of the sources would be on paper and not online, as is often the case with older publications. Mooonswimmer 00:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Moonswimmer. I can't find any third party sourcing and it's not so old that it would all be locked away in hard copy paper sources. Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 22 January 2023 (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. Star Mississippi 01:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Thomas Christian names[edit]

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

Article's sources refer to persons rather than their names. This appears to be an article wholly reliant on original research. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, India, and Kerala. Pbritti (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Far too much (conservative words) originsl research. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2023 (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. Daniel (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

András Burics[edit]

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

Based on Google News and DDG, looks to fail WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC comprehensively. Best sources are HAON, which confirms that he is a defensive midfielder and that he is going on a loan, Nemzeti Sport, which is just a list of transfers/loans, and Rangadó 24, which mentions him twice in passing, regarding being released from a club - Kazincbarcikai SC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 23:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for what it's worth, I'm surprised by this in-depth interview. I'd expect more, but I'm not doing well finding anything. Nfitz (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better than anything that I found but the issue with Q&A articles like this is that they contain little that we can build a meaningful biography from. Burics' views on a match or series of matches doesn't mean much to an encyclopaedia reader. I can't think of any good reason as to why they'd use that ghastly font colour either. I had to drag my mouse over the text just to read the cursed thing! So much for trying to make semi-pro Hungarian football accessible! Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per reference above.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no significant coverage in reliable sources (the interview is a primary source with nearly zero independent coverage). Fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - interviews can't be counted as WP:RS, as they are not independent secondary sources. Angelo (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Ortizesp and Nfitz. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A basic Q&A with zero independent analysis does not confer notability Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 26 January 2023 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Esteban Pérez Daza[edit]

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

Unsure about notability of the artist. PROD removed by user who claimed "artist has works in prominent public and academic collections, including Chilean national art museum, Chilean consulate in Washington DC, and Yale University gallery". Bedivere (talk) 20:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Chile. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Chilean National Museum of Fine Arts, Everson Museum of Art, and the Yale University Art Gallery all count as notable collections, so a clear pass of WP:NARTIST. Curiocurio (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This artist clearly meets WP:NARTIST by way of their permanent public artwork (as verified by New York Times reference), and by the fact that their work is held in the permanent collections of several notable museums. Not sure why this was prodded and then put up for deletion, as it's a clear pass of our notability criteria for artists. Netherzone (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2023 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Miller (businessman)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Reason for my PROD is "Apparently only notable for joining a company and being knighted. Unable to find significant coverage of this person in reliable sources. BBC news link is a WP:ROUTINE news article and the rest appear to be dead." A further WP:BEFORE check yielded nothing additional, however I concede that "Robin Miller" is quite the common name and that my algorithms are likely biased towards Robin Miller (journalist).

The PROD was contested by Phil Bridger, citing WP:ANYBIO. Of course, knighthood is a significant honour, however the WP:GNG trumps ANYBIO and the sourcing just doesn't cut it. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 20:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, Royalty and nobility, Business, United Kingdom, and England. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 20:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I haven't found a clear slam-dunk example of SIGCOV like an extended biographical profile or book chapter, there is quite a bit of medium-length news coverage, and some book coverage that's a bit more than passing mentions. Examples:

Sweney, Mark (2007-07-10). "Former Emap chairman joins Crash Media". the Guardian. Retrieved 2023-01-20.

Standard, Nick Goodway, Evening (2012-04-13). "Emap chief to take HMV hot seat". Evening Standard. Retrieved 2023-01-20.((cite web)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

"At Lunch With Robin Miller". Classic Bike. 2021-05-01.

Cox, Howard; Mowatt, Simon (2014-03-07). Revolutions from Grub Street: A History of Magazine Publishing in Britain. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-166470-0.

There are more in that vein. If it was all coverage of a leadership appointment to a single company, I would vote to redirect, but I think the sum of coverage over his entire career plus the knighthood add up to biographical notability. Jfire (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable having been knighted: WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times"; example of coverage in: the Times, Business big shot: Sir Robin Miller; Independent, The Monday Interview: Rise of a two-headed giant: They may be the odd couple of business, but Gail Counsell finds Emap's chiefs are happy to keep on arguing in the boardroom - Robin Miller and David Arculus Piecesofuk (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A knighthood very clearly passes WP:ANYBIO #1 and has always been held to do so at AfD. "Apparently only notable for joining a company and being knighted": Why on God's good earth do you think he was knighted? Because he was completely non-notable?! Good grief! Pure lack of understanding of the real world. "the WP:GNG trumps ANYBIO". No. No, it doesn't! Both are notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)-- Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ANYBIO is very clearly a WP:SNG and therefore is subordinate to the GNG. Not sure why that at all correlates to a supposed lack of understanding of the real world. Pure garbage comment bordering on personal attack. I expected better from someone with tools. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 17:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then please don't make such ridiculous nominations. It is blatantly obvious that anyone with a knighthood is notable. "Apparently only notable for joining a company and being knighted" is, I'm afraid, one of the silliest comments I've ever seen. Presumably you think knighthoods are given to anyone and everyone. And that he is notable for being knighted, not knighted for being notable. Which clearly does indeed show a lack of understanding. This is not any sort of attack. It's an expression of surprise at the nomination and an exhortation to employ a bit more thought before you nominate an article for deletion in the future. The fact it was deprodded by an experienced editor was a hint. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It is blatantly obvious that anyone with a knighthood is notable." this shows an incredibly Anglo-centric worldview and ignores the fact that I legitimately tried to find sources but was unable to. Doubling down on some sort of "lack of understanding of the real world" over this is frankly pathetic and this energy should be spent expanding the article beyond a stub resume/CV instead of continued personal comments / wrongful assumptions about me and what I "think". - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this shows an incredibly Anglo-centric worldview. No, it really doesn't. People with any equivalent honour are notable anywhere in the world. I have argued this many times. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw per sources found by Piecesofuk. Not going to subject myself to garbage comments from admins any further. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 17:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Morgann Book[edit]

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

The sources provided do not show that the subject meets WP:GNG. None of them offers any analysis and they are full of quotes from the subject. I have found this piece in The New Yorker, which only mentions her superficially. I'm happy to consider further sources, but at the moment I believe the subject is not notable. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Food and drink, Internet, and Canada. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The four sources in the article are from the CBC and a newspaper local to the area. That's about all I find, and this [1] for a news bit about her, this in Narcity as well [2]. That's GNG. Keep. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. Fn 4 in WP:GNG notes a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source, and the two CBC sources Ancaster teen gains TikTok fame with viral Dairy Queen videos (Jan 3, 2021) and WATCH — Dairy Queen TikTok star Morgann Book talks sweet success (CBC Kids News, Feb 24, 2021) seem appropriate to consider as one source, and neither appear to have much independent secondary context or commentary - she promotes her family's business on TikTok and has become popular on that platform. CTV similarly reports Ont. teen makes her family's Dairy Queen Tik Tok-famous (Jan. 6, 2021, based on her statements). Narcity (Jan. 4, 2021) quotes CBC quoting her father about how well the promotion has worked for the business. The Hamilton Spectator also covers her using TikTok to promote her family's business, based on her statements: Taking the cake: How this Hamilton Dairy Queen employee became TikTok famous (Oct. 26, 2020), and Another look at Morgann Book (CanCulture Magazine, April 11, 2022) notes she has started college, has a friend, isn't working at DQ that much, started a YouTube channel, and has hired a manager to "handle all of my emails, brand deals and negotiations; the business side to content creation". The article also includes a "Sponsored Content by Business Blurb Books" source dated Oct. 2, 2021 promoting how much free advertising she has provided to DQ. The lack of sustained, independent and in-depth secondary coverage as well as the generally promotional tenor of the coverage supports deletion per WP:BASIC and WP:PROMO. Beccaynr (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Beccaynr and the article fails NBIO.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 08:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Beccaynr's keen assessment of the sources (or lack thereof). Matt Deres (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The CBC cite is from CBC Hamilton, i.e. the CBC's local news bureau in the subject's own hometown, and thus represents local coverage rather than nationalized coverage — and other than that, we've got coverage from CTV's local affiliate in the same area, the local newspaper, and two things (Business Blurb and Narcity) that are not reliable or WP:GNG-building sources at all. So what we have here is a young woman who has had three pieces of "local teen does stuff" human interest coverage in her own local media market, which is not enough to earn permanent inclusion in an international encyclopedia all by itself — neither the sources themselves, nor the context of what those sources are covering her for, establish that she would pass the ten year test for enduring significance at all. GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep if n equals or surpasses two — it also takes into account factors like geographic range and the encyclopedic significance of the context in which the coverage is being given, so hometown human interest coverage in the context of not-inherently-notable activities isn't enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C.D. Municipal Santa María[edit]

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

Non-notable football club. Unable to locate significant independent coverage. The article has never had references. At one time it had this external link. I do find various football stats sites, such as soccerzz.com, that have brief information about this club including that it began in 1994. Gab4gab (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and El Salvador. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with the nominator, I can find nothing better than database sites like Playmaker Stats, with minimal info Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wasan Samarnsin[edit]

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

Article created after playing 9 mins of professional football 7 years ago. Searches in Thai yielded a reasonable number of hits but nothing that seems to demonstrate WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. The best ones that I could find were Thsport, a basic transfer announcement, Ballthai, which is mainly copied from a fan site and Samarnsin's Facebook page, and Ballthai 2, which confirms that he was man of the match in a semi-pro third tier game. This is not a notable enough achievement for a stand-alone article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Thailand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The transfer coverage in SMM Sport[3] and SuperSub Thailand[4] do profile his career in a bit more detail (born 1992 in Rayong, plays midfield, became noticed from Assumption College Thonburi school team, joined Muang Thong Utd Academy, loaned to Phuket (2013), Nonthaburi (2014), Air Force (2015), joined Muang Thong's senior team in the 2016 season, first match on 20 August, loaned to Nakhon Pathom following year, transferred to Army Utd in 2018, Customs in 2020, Songkhla in 2021). Not sure if that counts as in-depth. Pinging GiantSnowman per request. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, these are just a prose version of the data listed on his Transfermarkt profile, which has his DOB, birthplace and history of loans and transfers on there. ~~In fact, it's entirely possible that the SMM and SuperSub sources themselves might even be derived from looking at the database websites that feature this footballer.~~ If it elaborated on his career a bit more in either article, then I'd be tempted to change my mind about the AfD but, as it's generally expected for transfer announcements to list former clubs of the player, I don't think we need a Wikipedia article for every footballer that has this type of coverage, otherwise we'll have an article on almost every single footballer that transfers between pro or semi-pro clubs and, in my view, the bar for notability would be too low. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We also dismissed similar coverage at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yannasit Sukchareon although I appreciate that there wasn't huge participation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SMM and SuperSub sources are from local teams and local media. There is no way they get news from German website. SMM was even a public listed company under ticker name SMM until it made a backdoor listing deal with STARK. Other than sports, SMM is also a major manga publisher in Thailand [5]. SuperSub is just an online sport news website. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for that, I've now struck the offending statement. My point still stands regarding the depth of the coverage, though, and that it doesn't go beyond what a typical database site would say about a footballer, even though it does it using prose rather than tables and stats. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer news is by its very nature non-significant. Giant Snowman 15:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most sources on google are only unreliable stats.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 03:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - fails WP:GNG Angelo (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2023 (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trooper Clerks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This fan film appears to fail WP: NFILM. First nomination resulted in redirect/merge. It was recreated and the second nomination ended in no consensus. It has been tagged for notability since 2017.

My hope is that this has either notability proven so the tag can be removed, or decided that it isn't notable and should be deleted. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:02, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I stand by the opinion I had voiced in the preceding deletion discussion not so long ago: Several secondary sources have been listed there, I think together they provide enough coverage that the topic is notable. In my view, the notability tag should be removed. Do I need to re-list the sources? Daranios (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I commented in the last nomination as well. I'm not seeing notability for wikipedia. The PhD thesis, ok, but that's about all there is. A few small book mentions and the minor award help, but I don't think it's at GNG or FILM. Oaktree b (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The film award article uses the same PhD thesis here as a source, so I'm not seeing notability there either. Still not seeing GNG or any other acronym for the various notability criteria we could use here either... Oaktree b (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Clerks (film). I checked the sources mentioned by Daranios in the prior AfD, I couldn't access one (paywalled google book displays blank), the others seem to fail WP:SIGCOV. As such I don't think this is notable enough for a stand-alone entry per WP:GNG. But this is certainly worth mentioning at Clerks (film), where currently it is not mentioned at all. Merge should solve all the problems. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Clerks (film). A poorly sourced article which does not pass the notability standards, IMO.

139.190.236.109 (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The book references are non-SIGCOV mentions (this has only three results, one of which is the index. Otherwise, this film is mentioned in two pages (p468 and p469) while listing examples, with some plot info and potentially some analysis. It probably isn't SIGCOV but I might be wrong) and personally to me the fan award is minor and don't count towards WP:GNG or WP:NFILM criteria 1 or 2 though I can see why others would disagree. Otherwise there are two PHD essays. This is likely WP:RS (it probably meets supervised by recognized specialists in the field) and is borderline WP:SIGCOV, with one paragraph and an additional bullet list that goes into some analysis instead of being plot-only. I can't access the full version of the other essay, I had a search at The Wikipedia Library and for some reason didn't find it. Overall, if the other PHD essay is WP:SIGCOV (ping me if anyone could access it), notability seems to be borderline. If it is the case that the other PHD essay is also brief, I am at merge to Clerks (film), which is an WP:ATD preferable than outright deletion. VickKiang (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we've got one source that seems clearly RS, and others that are inaccessible, but WP:PAYWALL makes it clear that we can't consider those "lesser" sources just because we cannot access them. Feel free to ping me if we get access and nothing is SIGCOV. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Young, Clive (2008). Homemade Hollywood: Fans Behind the Camera. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 171–172. ISBN 978-0-8264-2922-3. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Allen settled in on spoofing the work of slacker-film director—and noted Star Wars enthusiast—Kevin Smith, whose breakthrough came with the 1994 indie classic Clerks. The result was Trooper Clerks, a shot-for-shot remake of the Smith film's trailer, featuring stormtroopers looking after a convenience store on the Death Star. The flick painstakingly re-created the cheap, grungy look of the original film, but was no shoddy endeavor. ... Unsurprisingly, the flick was very popular with Smith's legion of fans; when Allen sent a copy—and a prop helmet—to Smith's production company, ViewAskew, the faux trailer was quickly posted on one of the organization's websites. ... Instead, he put his computer skills to work, creating a Flash-animated Trooper Clerks cartoon. The new short was brilliant, pairing up the creations of Lucas and Smith deceptive ease, as the titular clerks schemed to get the blueprints of the Death Star into rebel hands, thus ensuring, through twisted logic, that they wouldn't be fired from their convenience store jobs on the Empire's space station."
2. Pérez-Gómez, Miguel Ángel (2015). "El fan film: paradigma de la cultura participativa en el entorno de los new media" [The fan film: paradigm of participatory culture in the environment of the new media] (in Spanish). University of Seville. pp. 548–549. Retrieved 2023-01-22.
  The doctoral thesis notes: "Cortometraje ganador en la categoría de Mejor Animación. Parodia en la que personajes de la saga galáctica emulan conversaciones de Clerks (1994), de Kevin Smith, pero discutiendo sobre la filmografía de este realizador. Por un lado dos Stormtroopers simulan ser unos dependientes dentro de la Estrella de la muerte y por otro, Darth Maul y el emperador simulan ser Jay y Silent Bob, dos personajes del universo fílmico de Kevin Smith, dos jóvenes que están todo el día sin hacer nada y vendiendo droga.
  From Google Translate: "Winning short film in the Best Animation category. Parody in which characters from the galactic saga emulate conversations from Clerks (1994), by Kevin Smith, but discussing the filmography of this director. On the one hand, two Stormtroopers pretend to be dependents inside the Death Star and on the other, Darth Maul and the Emperor pretend to be Jay and Silent Bob, two characters from Kevin Smith's film universe, two young people who spend all day doing nothing. nothing and selling drugs."
3. Jenkins, Henry (2006) [2001]. "Quentin Tarantino's Star Wars?: Digital Cinema, Media Convergence, and Participatory Culture". In Durham, Meenakshi Gigi; Kellner, Douglas M. (eds.). Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing. p. 572. ISBN 978-1-4051-3258-9. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Jeff Allen, a 27-year-old "HTML monkey" for an Atlanta-based internet company, for example, made Trooperclerks, a spoof of the trailer for Clerks, which deals with the drab routine confronted by the stormtroopers who work in convenience stores and video rental outlets onboard the Death Star. The short spoof, which was immediately embraced and promoted by Kevin Smith's View Askew, was later followed by a half-hour animated film based on the same premise, made in response to the news that Clerks was being adapted into an animated network series. Allen's focus on Clerks came only after he considered and rejected the thought of doing a Star Wars parody based on Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs."
4. Ochwat, John (1999-05-14). "May the Force of Parody Be With You". The Oklahoman. Archived from the original on 2023-01-22. Retrieved 2023-01-22.
  The article notes: "These parodies are funny and weird, and they mesh "Star Wars" with odd bits of our culture. The first trailer is 90 seconds of dementia that will make more sense if you've seen the 1994 movie "Clerks." But let's let the narrator tell the story: ... The movie "Clerks" featured two slacker convenience store clerks. "Trooper Clerks" sets the convenience store on the Death Star. Darth Vader is checking expiration dates on quarts of milk, a biker scout complains, "What do you mean there's no ice? You mean I gotta drink this coffee hot?" All the while, the duo presses on in Imperial slacking tradition. ... The next shot is of Greedo, the bounty hunter, getting blasted from across the counter. Very weird. Pretty funny."
5. Lee, Elizabeth (1999-05-28). "May the Farce be with you: 'Star Wars' parodies bloom". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2023-01-22. Retrieved 2023-01-22.
  The article notes: "They've gleefully embraced the Dark Side of the Force with spoofs like "Trooper Clerks," a 90-second re-creation of the trailer to the film "Clerks," with imperial storm troopers behind the counter, and ... Allen's "Trooper Clerks," shot mostly in Athens, hit the Web late last year. Troopers working the convenience store play hockey with a mousebot in the halls of the Death Star, banter suggestively with C-3PO and complain about their customers -- just as the counter jockeys do in Kevin Smith's "Clerks." Smith's View Askew Productions now links to Allen's video from its Web site."
6. Less significant coverage:
  1. Rose, Lisa (1999-05-16). "Use the mouse, Luke: The Top 10 "Star Wars" Web sites". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2023-01-22. Retrieved 2023-01-22.
    The article notes: "Echostation ... Look for New Jersey filmmaker Kevin Smith's raunchy parody, "Trooper Clerks," in the multimedia section."
  2. Cohen, Stacey Cara (1999-05-14). "Already, hate-mongers ganging up 'Phantom'". Daily Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-01-22. Retrieved 2023-01-22.
    The article notes: "Trooper Clerks," at www.studiocreations.com/trooperclerks, places stormtroopers in a trailer duplicating Kevin Smith's film "Clerks.""
  3. "Southern Culture". Orlando Sentinel. 1999-05-07. Archived from the original on 2023-01-22. Retrieved 2023-01-22.
    The article notes: "The Trooper Clerks Web site provides a fun way to pass the time while waiting for the Star Wars sequel to hit movie theaters May 19.The one-and-a-half minute trailer shows stormtroopers as store clerks in a sendoff of the popular movie."
  4. Power, Ed (2002-08-27). "Want to clout a celebrity? Then climb aboard the Net surfer; Have keyboard will travel: the virtual world of the Internet offers an entertaining way to get away from it all at virtually no cost". The Irish Times. ProQuest 309511022.
    The article notes: "Best then to trot along to www.shockwave.com, an engaging bells'n'whistles treasure-trove showcasing the powerful and flexible shockwave media player. An abundance of games and quirky animated shorts ("Trooper Clerks", the delirious Star Wars-Kevin Smith pastiche Trooper Clerks is a highlight) vie for your attention."
  5. Botwin, Michele (1999-04-24). "Imitation Is Silliest Form of Flattery". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2023-01-22. Retrieved 2023-01-22.
    The article notes: "“Trooper Clerks"--A black-and-white parody of Kevin Smith’s “Clerks,” complete with storm troopers as clerks."
  6. Wolk, Douglas (August 1999). "Starry Eyes". CMJ New Music Monthly. p. 75. Retrieved 2023-01-22 – via Google Books.
    The article notes: "It's got a counterpart of sorts in Trooper Clerks (www.studiocreations.com/trooperclerks), a remake of the trailer for Kevin Smith's Clerks starring the big scary guys in white body armor."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Trooper Clerks to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the reliable sources coverage idenified above particularly the phd thesis that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retropalooza[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - is reliant on primary sources and other unreliable sources (Facebook) Dan arndt (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Events, and Texas. Dan arndt (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The Fort Worth newspaper cited already in the article seems a RS, and this from a Dallas newspaper [6]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although the Dallas Observer says they may earn a commission if you click on a link bla bla, maybe not the best sourcing. Still a !weak keep I think. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the Fort Worth Star-Telegram clippings for verification. Timur9008 (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Just added 2 more sources,and just removed one facebook linkLeomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!) 00:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dallas Observer source cited here is not a significant coverage ("Another big pop culture convention is the Arlington-based Retropalooza, celebrating all things retro in the worlds of toys, music and video games. The two-day event also encourages cosplay and includes guest panelists."). Fort Worth Star-Telegram's source [7] is somewhat better, but sadly turns the focus off of Retropalooza to MetalJesusRocks after one paragraph. I was unable to find more in my searches, fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jovanmilic97. This is mostly sourced to FaceBook, without proper sources to qualify as significant coverage. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find one instance of WP:SIGCOV but it lacks sufficient coverage to be notable besides that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jovanmilic97.Fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2023 (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 per criterion A7. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shamoba[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Appears to be an autobiography. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7 --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:31, 20 January 2023 (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. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Effect[edit]

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

If one Googles "Elon effect", the top hits have nothing to do with the @elonjet account but instead discuss Musk's impact on the price of various cryptocurrencies. I don't see much there to build a non-stub article but if there is, we might as well start from scratch because "Elon effect" is not, as the article currently suggests, used primarily to denote a variant of the Streisand effect. Pichpich (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources suggest that the term is used in the way suggested by the article. Delete as original research. A change of scope may be warranted, but there is no indication that it would be long enough of an article to justify not editing a section about it into the parent Elon Musk article (with a title of "Effects on cryptocurrency markets" or similar) and creating a redirect instead. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 21:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely made up. The Streisand effect is the correct term and that article exists. Lamona (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is not a lot of substance to the article and there has not been enough examples or relevance for it to warrant a wikipedia page write-up. HelplessBystander (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Popular culture. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 17:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify/rewrite. The Elon Effect in the context of cryptocurrencies may be notable (FT is RS, for example), but for inexclipable reason the author of this chose to apply this term to the jet tracking controversy... WP:TNT likely applies, ping me if some tries to salvage it. If the author asks for draftication, we could also do this.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not notable. Term appears to be a meme/made up, little long-term impact, and clearly doesn't meet standards of notability. KlayCax (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2023 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fear and Loafing[edit]

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

An article on a newspaper column that I don't think actually meets the WP:GNG. Of the references included in the current article, only one, from AOL News, would appear to be potentially valid as significant coverage from reliable sources. While the "Awards" section seems to indicate notability, most of these actually have nothing to do with the column that the article is about - they were given out long before it ever started. And, even the awards that were given to the author during the period of the column's run are of somewhat dubious notability themselves. Searches turned up very little non-primary coverage of the column. I was initially considering suggesting a Merger to the Las Vegas Review-Journal article, but given that this was just one of countless columns printed for a relatively brief time of the paper's 100+ year history, and the lack of actual coverage in reliable, secondary sources, I felt that would ultimately not be appropriate as it would give somewhat undue weight to the actual notability of the column. Rorshacma (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. The AOL source looks reliable, independent and gives significant coverage, but by itself cannot meet WP:GNG. No other reliable/independent sources are forthcoming. WJ94 (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inamullah Bhatti[edit]

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

Not sufficiently significant as an academic, you can see his citations here. He had brief media coverage when he was arrested, but no significant coverage overall. The page is promotional and partially copied from Bhatti's LinkedIn page. Mvqr (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Pakistan. Mvqr (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing for sourcing found, this article has a very promotional/flowery tone. Most of it is also unsourced, written in prose. Not suitable for a wiki article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding the two other sources that are about Inamullah Bhatti. [8]https://www.aninews.in/news/world/europe/wsc-condemns-abduction-of-sindh-prof-inam-bhatti-demands-immediate-release20190905083117/[9]https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/world-sindh-professor-kidnapped-from-karachi-airport-547550 KohiyarSindhi (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see few of research work in unreliable and on his profile pages which clearly fails to meet with WP:NACADEMIC, being a writer also nothing found to demonstrates notability per WP:CREATIVE. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mid Airlines (Zimbabwe)[edit]

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

Not notable. There's no evidence this airline still exists, or that it ever actually operated any flights. Searches find hits related to a Sudanese airline of the same name and a few dating from 2001 about its founding but nothing more recent or more substantial. Neiltonks (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Zimbabwe. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable and no apparent relation to the other Mid Airlines. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did fly.^[1]^[2] Sources exist indicating investors and history.^[3]^[4] Continued to operate into 2003.^[5]

References

^ "Zimbabwe: Mid Airlines Finally Bounces Back". The Herald. 18 September 2002. The airline, which failed to launch its inaugural flight in September last year, finally took to the skies on Monday.
^ "Zimbabwe: Mid Airlines Off to Jo'burg". Zimbabwe Independent. 1 November 2002.
^ "Zimbabwe: New Investor for Mid Airlines". Financial Gazette. 6 June 2002.
^ "Zimbabwe: Mid Airlines Still Determined to Take Off After Technical Glitch". The Herald. 7 June 2002.
^ "Zimbabwe: Tourism Industry Slump Stalks Airlines". Financial Gazette. 3 July 2003. To date, the national airline Air Zimbabwe, Air Zambezi and Mid Airlines are the only surviving carriers. Air Zimbabwe has merely survived

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 15:52, 20 January 2023 (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 (with a slight dose of WP:SNOW). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Country Boy Eddie[edit]

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

The page doesn't seem to meet notability standards KD0710 (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has been the subject of (many, many) multiple reliable publications, especially with his recent death. (Also, look up "Eddy" with an "y', which some sources use). I question if a WP:BEFORE search was done. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Country Boy Eddie was absent from Wikipedia until a few days ago, when someone newly created the article in reaction to his recent death. He should have had an article all along. In addition to many current news stories about his passing, which provide robust biographical info, he can also be found very easily in a Google Books search, as older books covered his radio/TV show when it was current. He is also mentioned often in histories of country music, as his show helped launch the careers of Tammy Wynette and Dolly Parton. The article needs expansion, not deletion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sounds notable to me. https://deadline.com/2023/01/country-boy-eddie-dead-alabama-tv-star-who-gave-dolly-parton-tammy-wynette-chance-was-92-obituary-1235221916/ Dream Focus 19:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above, clearly meets WP:GNG many sources available. ResonantDis_tortion 19:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources support that WP:NBIO is met. Hopefully the article can be improved with further sourced text, because the topic seems worthwhile. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Deadline article and others provided. Threevian (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am finding WP:SIGCOV and it is looking more like an article now. Lightburst (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article popped up due to a related link and I was baffled as to why it was up for deletion. Looking at the claim being made, the article provides the in-depth reliable and verifiable sources needed to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above points. GR86 (📱) 10:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Per Alansohn, baffling. JSFarman (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2023 (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. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holy See of the East[edit]

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

The concept of "Holy See of the East" is not mentioned in sources cited. It appears to be used exclusively as a synonym for the Catholicos of the East. Article is mostly an unsourced jumble. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Iraq, and India. Pbritti (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Delete for the reasons given by @Pbritti. --Jahaza (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The term is not mentioned in any of the article's source's and I can't find any mention of the Holy See of the East in any reliable sources (nothing turns up in a Google Books or Google Scholar search, which you'd expect if the term was in even limited use by theologians or Church historians). WJ94 (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is a muddle. It might be reduced to a list article dealing with the heads of churches that claim the title, a topic that seems to be covered in the lead section. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: I was actually going to propose that originally until, upon review, I couldn't find the title in regular usage by any group. The title seems to have largely originated on Wikipedia, with almost all reference to it either citing Wikipedia or being a mirror site. Textual sources on Eastern Christianity–particularly "Nestorian" and Syriac Christianity–refer to a Catholicos of the East with regularity, but there is never reference to a "Holy See of the East". My guess is that the concept is an invention. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2023 (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. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Convent Sr. Sec. School[edit]

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

Non-notable; many schools have exactly the same names. Lead paragraph is directly copied from the website. Only sources are self-published by the school and primary. Moved to mainspace again by page creator after a draftify. Silikonz💬 16:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Silikonz💬 16:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Rajasthan. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mrefu Farm[edit]

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

Part of the huge batch of Kenya geographic stubs created by editor MIDI in April 2010 using AWB. Seems to be pulled from GEONAMES, does not have matching location on GMaps. Kazamzam (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator - Kazamzam (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 19 January 2023 (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. Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Mana Tower[edit]

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

Zero in-depth refs from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Was sent to draft in hopes of improvement, but returned to mainspace without any. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Qatar. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment nothing on JStor or NYT. A few hits on Google Books but they look like directories and other passing mentions Elinruby (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep the content, discuss the rest.. This is a dreadfully messy discussion. There is clearly no appetite for deletion, and nobody has challenged the content on the substance. There are reasonable arguments that this is redundant and should be merged, and other reasonable arguments for a split. And there are genuine original research concerns with the title that have not been rebutted. The title, and the need for a standalone page, could benefit from further discussion but given that this is already a hot mess, and that AfD isn't really the venue for discussing a merger or a retitling, I'm closing this before it gets any worse. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 4[edit]

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

The talk page regarding the discussion is available here [[10]]

Redirect or Delete could be an option due to the article is a duplicate version of Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 3 Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 15:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the above is not a nomination for deletion. No reason for deletion has been suggested here. So this is should be speedily closed as an administrative matter, IMHO.

And, frankly, Talk:Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#phase 4? seems a more sensible place for discussion on phases to occur, among topic-informed editors, rather than calling in all the AFD-focused editors to !vote who are not much informed. AFD shouldn't butt in on sensible editing discussion going on. And they don't need an AFD to make an editing decision to merge back material that had been separated.

Also, participants here should know that there's also ongoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War in Ukraine 2023, about dividing by objective matter of calendar year, as opposed to dividing by subjective "phases". --Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I suggest that the phase 4 page could be merged into the phase 3 page. Each date that appears in both pages can be examined, and the best material placed in the phase 3 page. As noted above, the bulk of the discussion of this issue is on the Talk page. John Sauter (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's decided to be merged, then there should be no deletion of content. All the information is important. Some of it may indeed be redundant (on both pages), but the point is that it should be read and moved, if not present on "phase 3". In case of duplicate information, the "phase 3" article version should be preferred, because it has a much larger number of frequent editors to ensure quality content. GMRE (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was that all information would be preserved. Any item in the phase 4 page that is not in the phase 3 page would be copied to the phase 3 page. For any item that appears in both pages, the items can be merged, making sure to keep any information on the phase 4 page that is not already present in the phase 3 page. Once this process is complete the phase 4 page can be deleted. John Sauter (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Half-kratos21 (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edit to phase 3 got reverted, which caused both pages to be identical, they were only distinct for about 10 minutes. I'd also like to add that we we're having a discussion on this issue in the talk page and we came to 2 solutions, I had hoped @Pranesh Ravikumar would respect this discussion and not rush a decision with a deletion request. therefore, I say Withdraw proposal as we were already discussing the page's future.

Great Mercian (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Great Mercian - The discussion has already happened in the main page of timiline of the 2022 Russian invasion of the ukraine on creation of new phase 4. You can go through the talk page here -[[11]]. After taking WP: CONSENSUS only nominated for deletion if you need to provide your opinion in the deletion discussion provide either stating these things Delete , Comment, Merge orRedirect for Admins to decide the end result. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you wanna go through that again? I couldn't understand what you were saying. Great Mercian (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any distinct information back to phase 3. The whole point of the "phase" terminology in the timeline articles was to reflect the "phases" in the main 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article. Why was this created without consensus? --HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good point. The "keep" choice should include updating the invasion article to distinguish a fourth phase. John Sauter (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we are very clearly in a 4th phase now and we need to reflect that. Great Mercian (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as an administrative matter as there is no deletion rationale given in the nomination. Do see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War in Ukraine 2023, by the way. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the nomination, it says the article is a duplicate version of Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 3. That is rationale, via WP:CONTENTFORK. HappyWith (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a duplicate because I moved the duplicate information to phase 4, which then got reverted. Great Mercian (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram Attached in the nomination about the talk page which started after an edit in the main article here ^[1] There was a new article created here ^[2]. As the timeline of phase 3 got reverted and phase 3 has been updated up till 20th January 2023 comparatively to phase 4. Could you advise the reason for Speedy Keep. In the deletion discussion about War in Ukraine 2023 the nominator @Fram stated that A well-intentioned effort, but the war isn't fought on a year-by-year basis, and we already have a series of timelines giving the chronological overview; the current one is Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 4, and a new one will be created when necessary. So far the discussion on the timeline of phase 4 talk page attached here ^[3] was whether the article phase 4 is necessary. As you can go through talk page for further information about its necessity. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Speedy Keep" is appropriate when an AFD nomination is not constructive, e.g. when it is mal-formed, or out of order, or a matter of trolling, or duplicative to an ongoing discussion that was already working, or otherwise when it just won't be productive, as here. Here, the nomination statement is literally "The talk page regarding the discussion is available here 1", i.e. it is a pointer to a place where discussion is going. It is okay for an editor to call attention to a discussion by posting notices at WikiProjects, say, as long as the notices are not unduly biased, selective, widespread (see wp:CANVAS for guidance). If you really want to invite "AFD editors" to that discussion for some reason, you could post a notice at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. The "nomination" does go on to say "'Redirect' or 'Delete' could be an option due to the article is a duplicate version of Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 3"; that looks like a comment one could make within an AFD, if there were an AFD ongoing, but it does not state a clear position (you are just observing that, if an AFD were happening, some other editor might say "Redirect, because of duplication", but you didn't communicate what you want or why. To be valid an AFD nomination must include an explicit assertion by the nominator that a given article should be deleted, and it must give reasons. And in a situation where important discussion is going on elsewhere, i suppose the nominator must also give clear reasons why having a separate AFD is required, at the other discussion.

And, I'm sorry, I don't get what you mean by "Attached in the nomination about the talk page which started after an edit in the main article here." That's not a sentence, and I really don't understand what you mean. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pranesh Ravikumar: Can I ask what the point of that comment was? if anything you seem to be regurgitating information from that deletion request and the history logs of the phase 3 page. I don't think this really supports your argument (which I am highly inclined to assume you are in the 'delete' camp). May I also remind you that we were having a discussion on the talk page before you set up this request, and at no time at all did you give any indication that you had or were intending to submit a deletion request. I don't think you're actually being very productive in this discussion. could you please justify why you nominated this article for deletion (aside from the duplicate argument, which I have had to reiterate my response over and over again), perhaps then I could probably see where you're coming from. Many thanks, Great Mercian (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram What I mentioned about the 'Attached in the nomination about the talk page which startled after an edit in the main article' is that the talk page about phase 4? started after the an major edit was made in phase 3^[4]. The reason it was brought to AFD is that the @Tol, @John Sauter, @HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith, and @Curbon7 agreed that since the reliable sources does not mentioned about phase 4 the edit seems to be an WP:OR. After taking WP:CONSENSUS from contributors of the same topic nominated for AFD and not WP:CANVAS as you can go through there were discussion in the talk page.

@Doncram - Could you advise whether the there is a need of Phase 4 or not?. In case of need for phase 4 please do provide your reliable sources for the same. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, I guess, but no I will not. Isn't the question of whether a "Phase 4" exists under discussion at the place you pointed to in your nomination. AFAICT, it should be discussed and resolved there. This AFD was messy from the start, IMHO, and it is getting messier as it goes along, including because of my own participation and disputing. I don't care about "winning" the AFD discussion, but this dispute all adds up to more reason this AFD should be closed as an administrative matter (because the question of "Phase 4 or not" is being decided somewhere else). It would be helpful now if some administrator could step in, please, and give guidance (the "Phase 4 or not" question is to be resolved where?). If the answer is here, contrary to my view, then please close the other discussion and inform us here that that has been done. Or close this because this is a mess, and start a new, clean AFD with a clear nomination. PLEASE! --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather he not start a new nomination, I am tired of justifying this article it's all falling on deaf ears. Great Mercian (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Great Mercian. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 05:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Great Mercian. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 10:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not commenting on the specifics of this case, but I just want to remind that we should not be legislating if something has entered a new phase or not, as that is WP:OR.; instead, we should be reflecting on whether or not reliable sources are calling this phase 4. If yes, then keep. If not, then merge. Curbon7 (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever said this was original research? splitting a page does not constitute original research. I am getting tired of trying to defend this page, why can't people just accept it? Great Mercian (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it phase 4 when no reliable sources are doing so is an OR-derived title. If RS are calling it phase 4, then it's fine. Simple as. Curbon7 (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Afaics just quickly looking, the phase 3, 2, 1 and 'prelude' articles are also OR on that basis. Timeline articles are often organized by date (time) rather than events (maybe an outline?). Descriptive titles are OK, but maybe better descriptions than Phase 1, 2...are needed. Selfstudier (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please just accept the page, this entire discussion is physically draining for me and now really isn't the time. Great Mercian (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Best to produce arguments for keep. Fwiw, I think if its OK to have a phase 1, 2, 3 then its also OK to have a phase 4, the problem is getting consensus on when a phase ends/starts. The phases are apparently supposed to match up with the periods in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article (also see Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine). On that basis, phase 3 is supposed to be Ukrainian counteroffensives which I would agree do seem to have stopped/paused ftb. I think I agree with Doncram, better to talk it out on Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in order to define a phase 4 (or just do away with phases and organize by time). Selfstudier (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When? Should I wait until this nomination is closed? Great Mercian (talk) 10:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you, if it was me, I would just go ahead and do it. Selfstudier (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier Thanks for your inputs - Just an clarification from your end so phase 4 is fine could be created without WP:RS inputs. In that case could editors create each phase for each month based on editors thoughts following WP:OR ignore the WP:RS inputs. Prelude was basically an insight of previous updates before invasion announcement from President Putin, after that Phase two was when attack started in Odesa which is located in southern region, after that Phase three was Ukraine counteroffensives. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Odesa wasn't attack, unless you're refering to the 1000s of strikes that occurred there. Great Mercian (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't entirely know what to do, and as I said the nomination is still open, I feel uncomfortable finally deciding with this still open. Great Mercian (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just make the argument as best you can. I can't help feeling that if it was auto divided in periods that would avoid the OR and the need to define each phase. Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is all really overwhelming. Great Mercian (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but initiate discussion at Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine on the definition for a phase 4 (or possibly do away with phases as seems a bit ORish). AfD seems ott right now, the material appears to be OK, just lacking an agreement on defining a phase 4.Selfstudier (talk) 10:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep but per above, we need to be sure to have clear agreement on what Phase 4 is (and by that, I mean "clear agreement by expert, reliable sources outside of Wikipedia" and not "clear agreement by a bunch of randos on a Wikipedia talk page"). I think AFD is a poor tool for the purpose of making such a decision, and the article talk pages would be better for this. --Jayron 32 15:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure, but consider the subtitles. The "phase 3" article is subtitled "Ukrainian counteroffensives" and the "phase 4" article is subtitled "Second stalemate". So if we go by the subtitles, as the definitions of those "phases", then the "phase 4" article makes perfect sense. However, in light of recent events (newer tanks being approved for Ukraine (Leopard 2 and possibly Abrams later), new AA missile systems being sent soon (Patriot) and the u.s. approving the targeting of Crimea), it seems that a second major wave of counterattacks will begin in another month, or two, once all the new equipment is delivered and the crews are done training. That means that the "stalemate" will last until then. So then it becomes a matter of is the article big/short/long enough to hold two counterattack waves and a stalemate in between? And in any case, there obviously is a stalemate now and we have no definitive way of knowing how long it will last. GMRE (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Birabent[edit]

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

I dont think we are getting an WP:NPROF pass with this engineer and teacher, let alone a GNG one. The two given sources are lapidary notices rather than in-depth obituaries. Various publications that appear to be his can be found [12] but are very weakly cited (which may be a hazard of publishing about Occitan/Gascon linguistics). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Underrepresented minority, but not notable. I was able to find only one other mention of him [13] and it is very brief. Additionally, I was unable to find reviews for any of his publications. Curbon7 (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and France. Curbon7 (talk) 15:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not even know whether I am allowed to post my opinion here. If so, let me say Keep. I am just saddened by the evolution of wikipedia, anyway, which is just joining the host of genocidary behaviours against our Occitan/Gascon culture. --— J. F. B. (me´n parlar) 16:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Little less drama please? WP is not engaging in "genocidary behaviours against Occitan/Gascon culture", people are merely observing fundamental policies like WP:Notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what color he is or where he's from, he needs to pass notability standards here. Please refrain from such accusations. Oaktree b (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've limited it to .fr webpages and he has 4 pages in google hits, most of the first page are obituaries, the rest are listings of his books or things that mention him in passing. He's simply not at GNG. I found one thesis covering his work, he might be closer with AUTHOR, but I can't find any critical reviews. Oaktree b (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of those obituaries more expansive than the cited ones? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They're not stories about him, more like the funeral cards you used to get at the funeral, but posted on-line now. Oaktree b (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Firstly, to the article creator Jfblanc: we all know how disappointing it can be when an article we spent time to create is put up for deletion. Please know that there is no conspiracy here to commit "genocide" against Occitan/Gascon culture. The word genocide is a very strong word, and there are actual genocides that have taken place and are taking place in the world, and this is not one of them. The vast majority of editors here are kind and thoughtful people who would not try to harm other cultures or peoples. The notability criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia have been determined over a period of many years through community consensus. We need these standards to insure the integrity of content. Moving on, I searched online for sources about Mr. Birabent, and I also searched under the Occitan spelling of his name, Joan Pèr Viravent, and was unable to find anything in the way of significant coverage WP:SIGCOV in verifiable reliable sources WP:RS. At this time, he does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:NACADEMIC. If you are able to find and post links to support his notability, post them here. A deletion discussion goes for a week, so if sources exist there is the possibility to save the article from deletion. Please assume good faith in your fellow editors. Netherzone (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will go back to my language wiki, another lost battle anyway. (And yes, there are pretty well documented genocides, we are all allowed to talk about, and some a bit uglier, because involving today's dominant cultures. But I see this is not a place for discussion, only for "compliance with rules". So many ugly things happened in history that were legal or compliant with rules... ) Enjoy your society meetings. — J. F. B. (me´n parlar) 06:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like it would need to show notability through WP:GNG rather than through WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, since the claim to fame is being the first to teach in Gascon rather than through impact of scholarly publications. The two references in the article as nominated are not very in-depth. This one from an Occitan language society is longer, but longer by being more flowery rather than by providing significantly more specific detail about his life. This local newspaper story (by the same author) has the same issue. So while I think these sources may be reliable, I am skeptical that they have the required depth for GNG. I would be willing to change my mind if other sources with better depth of coverage turn up. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2023 (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 Warhammer 40,000#Orks. Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ork (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

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

And since I just listed WHF Orcs and Goblins, here's the WH40K version. It's hard to say which is worse - this one is just a plot summary+WP:NOTAGUIDE unreferenced summary of game mechanics, with next to no footnotes throughout the text, and most problematic, with zero indication of notability of the subject covered. Even if the topic were to be shown notable (my before shows a ton of trivial mentions, but it is a popular faction in a popular gaming universe...), WP:TNT should apply to this mess - it's doubtful anything would be rescuable here outside categories, infobox and maybe a sentence or two in the lead anyway. WP:ATD in mind, I suggest redirecting this pure WP:FANCRUFT to Warhammer_40,000#Orks, with no prejudice to it being recreated as a properly referenced article that demonstrates the notability of the subject. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mika Loponen discusses orcs/orks with a specific focus on, among other examples, Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 in his PhD dissertation The Semiospheres of Prejudice in the Fantastic Arts : The Inherited Racism of Irrealia and Their Translation. I've added references. I'm sure there's plenty to do, maybe including cutting content, but I think the article can be kept. /Julle (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DISSERTATION allows us to use PhD theses, although they are not considered great sources (published papers/books are superior). I'll agree there is some SIGCOV content there (p.71-74, brief note on p. 86), although it is relevant both wo WH40K and WHF orcs (orks). There's a bit about goblins on p.110. Still, it's just one source (GNG requires multiple sources, let's say, two at minimum), and the terrible shape of the current article requires IMHO starting from scratch. I'd love to see someone use this source for something useful here, but what is there to rescue from the current mess? For now I'd say the source you found would be great addition to the Warhammer's article section on the orks faction. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warhammer 40,000#Orks: While there might be some potential sources, it would be very useful to destroy this article and start over. In any case, this article violates our policies regarding original research and verifiability. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Julle above, or merge to Warhammer 40,000#Orks. BOZ (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warhammer 40,000#Orks: Adding Dr. Loponen's thesis was a valiant effort, but the page is still almost entirely unsourced, and reads more like a fandom wiki than Wikipedia. It's also not clear to me - it may be to a seasoned player - how much of the page is reproduced from official Games Workshop material. Etherjammer (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage by reliable sources to establish notability. Serratra (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2023 (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 Warhammer Fantasy (setting)#Races and nations. Randykitty (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orcs and Goblins (Warhammer)[edit]

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

This is one of many Warhammer Fantasy supplements; there are dozens of them (as can be seen in this totally unreferenced list: Warhammer Army Book), and it is the only one that has stand-alone article. Unfortunately, it also fails WP:NBOOK/WP:GNG. This is a pure plot summary + catalogue info about the publication, and the reception is limited to a single misleading review. Misleading, b/c I was able to access that review and it is a review of three sourcebooks, not just this one, and dedicates only a single paragraph to this work. As a WP:ATD I can only recommend redirecting this to Warhammer Fantasy (setting)#Races and nations, as this article doubles as both the article about the 1994 gaming book, and an article about a fictional faction (that fails WP:GNG). I'd mind to see this rescued (as someone wh actually owns some Orcs and Goblin WHF minis...) but my BEFORE yielded little, and considering the fancrufty in-universe contents, WP:TNT would be needed anyway, so... here's to you, folks. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Warhammer Fantasy (setting)#Races and nations: I could not find any reliable sources that contain an in-depth discussion of this specific iteration of these two fictional species. The supplement is similar in its lack of coverage. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Warhammer Fantasy (setting)#Races and nations. BOZ (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Warhammer Fantasy (setting)#Races and nations. I think the review in Dragon magazine is significant - one paragraph is dedicated to the book exclusively, but other parts of the review still have commentary on Orcs and Goblins. But even so it's only one secondary source, so not enough for a stand-alone article if no more are found. A merge seems the best alternative to deletion then. Daranios (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the article has been improved with information from the review, I guess two merge targets would make sense: Warhammer Fantasy (setting)#Races and nations for the in-universe information, and Warhammer Army Book for the comments on the book itself. Daranios (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Warhammer Fantasy (setting)#Races and nations per Daranios and BOZ. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia–Georgia relations[edit]

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

Prod'ed recently for being unreferenced for years, got fixed with two basic official references, but they're not secondary sources demonstrating significant coverage in independent sources. This is like the umpteenth "international relations" article which I've noticed that doesn't demonstrate potential or approach the matter from the point of actually trying to describe relations, instead it's just a handful of mundane factoids and a few generic pretty pictures (map, flags) which illustrate those factoids but not their actual synthesis. We really should set some notability standards for these kinds of articles, it's been violating the spirit of WP:NOTDIRECTORY for years now. Joy (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Croatia and Georgia (country). Joy (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as someone that has participated in almost all bilateral AfDs, this one definitely fails WP:GNG. And lacking things that make bilateral relations notable like significant migration/trade and state visits. They don't even have resident embassies. LibStar (talk) 00:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even resident embassies doesn't have to mean much if you think about it... For example a rich country can afford to put embassies on the ground pretty much everywhere, but that doesn't mean much if it employs two dozen staff and renders mundane services to a hundred tourists a year - that'd still just not be notable. I'm glad to see this enthusiasm, but it just seems people want to have notability inherently carried over from notable states themselves, which should not be the standard. --Joy (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all above. -Vipz (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Gang-il[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Korea. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. LibStar (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Angelo (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fantom (smart contract platform)[edit]

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

In response to a removed PROD; does not meet notability guidelines and is largely promotional in nature. Very little of this article talks about the platform itself, instead mostly its underlying technology. Most of the sources seem to be announcements of routine business activities. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Products, Computing, and Internet. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit. I disagree completely. Would you be able to describe how it does not meet notability guidelines. The subject of the article has been covered extensively by media over the past few years, and the technology is used by a large number of people. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia with subjects less noteworthy and with only a couple of media appearances, yet they remain live. Would you be able to clarify the exact parts of the article you believe are promotional? I fail to see the article's promotional content, as the text simply is an exploration of the subject's technology. It does not make sense to state that there is little talk about the platform, but rather the technology, since the two are the same; the platform is the technology.

Additionally, since you state that most of the sources seem to be announcements of routine business activities, I implore you to list examples of this. Most of the sources are articles or pages from third-party sources that have covered Fantom, the information on which the article is based. Net Nima (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Net Nima Please see other stuff exists. I can only address the article in front of me. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us and remain for years- this does not mean more should be permitted, otherwise nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia. If you would like to work to identify other inappropriate articles that do not meet guidelines, we could use the help.

If an article should explore the technology used by a particular platform, the article should be about that technology and not the platform itself. If this article is to be about the platform itself, then that's what should be discussed. It would be like the article about Ford Motor Company describing how cars work or how assembly lines work; that is done at Automobile and assembly line, not Ford Motor Company.

The sources are the following:

a basic description of the platform where someone can purchase it
an interview with the CEO, which is not an independent source
a promotional piece where it states the writers get a commission for writing about the topic, not independent
a piece about an individual returning to work for the platform, staff changes are a routine business activity
a biography about the CTO of the company, not about the company itself
I got an error message when accessing this but it seems to be another profile about a staff member of the company
this is a blog, blogs are not usually considered reliable sources
this is a research paper written by at least some people associated with the platform
a "how does it work" piece telling at the end where people can buy it, basically an advertisement
has no byline and a disclaimer that the writers may be investors in Fantom
much like #1
seems to be an explanation of how to use the platform, not an explanation of why it is important/significant/influential
the same
a brief piece about governance of the platform(I think), not significant coverage
an announcement of a sponsorship deal, a routine business activity, not significant coverage of the platform itself
seems to be a press release
an annoucment of a partnership with the platform, a routine business activity
the same
an announcement of a helmet design related to the aforementioned sponsorship deal

Note that some of these sources are acceptable for other purposes, but not for establishing notability. That requires significant coverage from independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate the time you're putting into contributing. I think it's important when it comes to a unified source of information like Wikipedia that everyone can learn from, which is why I'm keen to contribute as well.

I think some of our disagreements may come from a misunderstanding. The term "smart contract platform" just refers to a blockchain that supports smart contracts. As such, it's not necessarily a platform in the traditional sense, and describing the "platform" and the technology separately isn't really possible, as Fantom inherently is a technology. This page could also have been called "Fantom (blockchain)" and retained its meaning. The pages for Bitcoin, Ethereum, and many other high-profile blockchain projects all describe in depth their technology, and surely those are big enough not to fly under any editor's radar. Even YouTube does not describe its technology on a separate page.

To use your example, this page would be the same as the "Automobile" and "assembly line" pages, while another potential page named "Fantom Foundation" would be the same as "Ford Motor Company" as the company behind the technology, but there is not enough material to make that page feasible.

I agree that some of the references could be better, thank you for taking the time to look them over in such depth, it's a great help. I've removed and added some to be more aligned with Wikipedia's guidelines. Net Nima (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your edits have been about this platform. Do you have an association with it? 331dot (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your sourcing isn't in neutral, reliable sources. The link given above by 331dot will give you an example of what we use. Was this thing covered in the New York Times? That's kind of what we're looking for. Or coverage in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! I took 331dot's notes into consideration and modified most of the sources in the latest version. Net Nima (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Net Nima Perhaps you missed it, but you didn't answer my question, do you have an association with Fantom? 331dot (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only saw your first message. Yes, I am associated. I just saw your message on my profile, and I have added a disclaimer like suggested. In regards to the article, I've kept its contents purely objective and cited the sources wherever needed for anyone to verify. Net Nima (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; You were notified of the sanctions in place with regards to editing about blockchain and told that policies must be strictly adhered to- if you are a paid editor associated with the company, it is encumbent upon you to be very familiar with relevant policies, especially with regards to notability, sourcing requirements, and conflict of interest. I suggest that you review those now, WP:COI, WP:ORG for starters. 331dot (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will go through these now. I did go through the notability requirements and believe the article to be in line with the critera as sources like Yahoo Finance, Forbes, and other well-known outlets have covered Fantom. Net Nima (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the above analysis. The article is it stands is largely using press-releases and product discussions to attempt to explain why the product is notable. All I find are similar announcements and descriptions on tech platforms. And the article is overly technical for what it is; I've read it and still don't understand what this "thing" is or why it matters. It's likely better suited for a more technical audience, not a generalist encyclopedia. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"proof of stake ABFT". This reads like a press-release prepared for people looking for specialist funding. More of the same as the article continues. They've designed a fancy thing that does stuff, without really explaining it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, the page for Bitcoin will not make sense to a non-technical audience, yet it is important for it to exist as there are millions learning about new technology from Wikipedia. Yes, it might be harder to understand than a general article, but every piece of information required to understand the contents of the article is right there. However, just like every other blockchain project on Wikipedia, it does require a general knowledge of how blockchain technology works. Net Nima (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've explained it here in a few lines, and the whole article doesn't make that clear, that's part of the problem. Oaktree b (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand what you mean, but I guess I fail to see why it is an issue that an article is difficult to understand. I could mention any of the million articles on difficult medical, scientific, or technological concepts that neither of us would understand, and yet they bring tremendous value to many people who work with these things or wish to learn more. Net Nima (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I wrote this article educationally for someone who is familiar with blockchain technology to learn more about the technology behind a project like Fantom. Any reader is welcome to click into the page for blockchain technology to educate themselves further before delving deeper into concepts that build upon that technology. Net Nima (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles aren't a place for companies to tell about what they do and how it works. They are for summarizing what independent reliable sources with significant coverage say about the company. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, which is why there are third-party sources for the information listed in the article. The only source that isn't third party is a research paper that describes Fantom's technology, which was written by its developers. However, I assumed that was fine as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other major technologies also cite their research papers in describing various parts of their technologies. Net Nima (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, getting back on track, the now-blocked user has posted rather technical things from non-RS. All I find are CoinDesk articles and funding announcements, nothing we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No evidence of anything that passes WP:CORP - David Gerard (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the articles used as sources pass it, including Forbes and Yahoo Finance. Net Nima (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Net Nima Note that a source being considered reliable does not mean that the content of every story they publish is acceptable(Forbes has many blogs and paid content that are not acceptable, just as an example). That's a common misunderstanding with company representatives. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that's the case with the sources I used. Net Nima (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that Net Nima is now blocked. 331dot (talk) 22:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that didn't take long. We wish him well. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nejc Plesec[edit]

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

Obscure lower division player without any WP:SIGCOV at all, in fact the only sources that I can find are database profiles, currenlty plays in a fully-amateur 4th division. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Slovenia. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage outside routine. Tone 16:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Angelo (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matic Marcius[edit]

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

WP:GNG, no significant coverage of any kind can be found, only 9 appearances in fully-pro leagues. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Slovenia. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no coverage outside of routine. Tone 14:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Angelo (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

War in Ukraine 2023[edit]

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

A well-intentioned effort, but the war isn't fought on a year-by-year basis, and we already have a series of timelines giving the chronological overview; the current one is Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 4, and a new one will be created when necessary. Fram (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Ukraine. Fram (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Note, however, that there's dispute about dividing info by "phases" being subjective, as opposed to dividing by year break which is objective. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 4 going on now! And perhaps comment there. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would agree with Fram's reasoning. This would be an arbitrary split based upon editor opinion rather than one supported by RSs. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete − while I dislike the "phase" structure of our timeline articles for the war (I'm sceptical such divisions are clearly supported by academic/expert sources at this time) the solution isnt creating separate "main" articles for the war in different time periods. There should just be one main article for the war spanning its entire timeframe; either "Russia−Ukraine war" or "Russian invasion of Ukraine" (we still haven't had a source-based discussion over which is more suitable, and whether or not sources treat the escalation in 2022 as a "separate"/distinct war). Jr8825 • Talk 12:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slatersteven is a long-standing editor. I am surprised they would think this was a good idea. Feels like some kind of experiment. Super Ψ Dro 14:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated in the nomination for deletion. After all, if needed, one might create a separate section in the main article about the war, there is no need to write a new article on each year of the conflict. ThegaBolt (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the explanation. It's the same war, not a series of distinct conflicts. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like WP:SNOW is picking up quickly here. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 22:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with Fram, could redirect to the main war article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with above, it seems more like an update that should be on a more complete history of the war. Kleebis007 (talk) 4:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Hey, this seems harsh, and it seems too easy to bash the creating editor without addressing what they were trying to get at. How about discussing briefly here:

What about the fact that the main article, 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, now has title that doesn't quite work. Should that be moved?
Just asserting the existing division of info is working, is kinda false, given that there's dispute about dividing info by "phases" being subjective, as opposed to dividing by year break which is objective. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 4 going on now! Put that in yer pipe and smoke it!
Note it is well-established in Wikipedia that it makes sense to split articles including list-articles into segments, and dividing by year is eminently sensible! It does not require academic agreement that there is a logically different "phase" starting on January 1 (although I see that the article does assert something like that, as if trying to justify the break). It is way better to divide a list of events by year, say, which keeps chronologically close things together. As opposed to so how many lists have been divided "alphabetically", e.g. A-C D-F G-N etc., which I have seen in lists of Liberty ships, lists of historic places (which better should be divided by country or geographic area), and many other.

Stop harshing without saying anything positive or constructive!

Don't just pile on, give the editor a break. Or is your point to run up your count of AFD deletions that you tally up and report somewhere??? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Nomination: I have to agree with Doncram, This honestly does feel like a bunch of dogpiling. Great Mercian (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I see one comment that is somewhat negative about the article creator. The post by Doncram though is a lot more negative and personal than the Afd was otherwise (something like "Or is your point to run up your count of AFD deletions that you tally up and report somewhere???" is completely unwarranted). I see no reason to withdraw this nomination, certainly not another AfD which seems to be heading for a keep anyway, and also not the behaviour of the "delete" supporters in this AfD. Fram (talk) 08:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment Redirect to Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 4, which is doing the job much better than this article. IN due course we can expect some event, which will be a new phase and warrant the start of a new timeline article. Possibly the latest timeline article need renaming to reflect that it is continuing into 2023. The change in year certainly does not mark a new phase in the war. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alia Zafar[edit]

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

Non notable Bio, fails to pass WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E. Nothing in reliable sources more than she appointed as first women director in PCB. Ref flooded page consists of primary, unreliable, 404 and subject's articles refs. Few of the reliable sources just covering her appointment in PCB. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Sports, and Pakistan. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete HR lady for the cricket board isn't notable. Not passing BIO. Oaktree b (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ROTM professional, fails WP:SIGCOV. 2405:201:3002:116D:A963:41B1:A8A6:C973 (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MikeClark[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NCOMPOSER/MUSICBIO KH-1 (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. KH-1 (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found him listed in the credits as the sound designer or engineer in other people's works, but even those musicians are not particularly notable. He can also be found in lists of participants at conferences and expert panels, but those things do not receive significant media coverage. I can find nothing on his own music compositions, not even from himself. He appears to be a trusty behind-the-scenes expert but that does not qualify for an article here. (Note: The article's weird title was probably the result of someone not knowing how disambiguation works; see Michael Clark.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tiesto was 3 times chosen as best Dj in the world by DJ magazine. He also had a lot of hits. He is not just a musican, but very famous and well known.

Look at the Discogs Page, the songs :Mike Clark wrot for his album, the electribe exposed, were all written by him. 77.169.91.152 (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but the article in question is not about Tiesto. See WP:NOTINHERITED. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neen klopt maar hij werkte ook aan zijn albums! Huysmanssuzy (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google Translate, the above means "No but also he worked on his albums!" ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:22, 23 January 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian remunerated football license[edit]

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

Similar case to Belgian professional football license, this article fails WP:GNG and has no evidence of notability. It's just a thing that exists but does not merit a standalone article. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Belgium. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same non-notability reasonings as the other article linked by nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgian professional football license regards Govvy (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:24, 19 January 2023 (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 K.A.A. Gent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Claude Bouvy Trophy[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Trophy not seemingly notable enough to be on Wikipedia; it's essentially a player of the season award for single club. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Belgium. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to K.A.A. Gent: where it is mentioned. Not notable enough for a standalone article. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Redirect to K.A.A. Gent. Govvy (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect as above. Giant Snowman 21:24, 19 January 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melique García[edit]

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

According to this, his best ever rankings are way outside required for WP:NTRACK. LibStar (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Honduras. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duel Project[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a bet between two filmmakers. Since it resulted in each of the two filmmakers making films that have their own separate articles, those two articles can (and already do) explain that context and crosslink each other as it is, making a third article about the bet itself superfluous. And the only source provided is a deadlinked blog entry, which is not sufficient to claim passage of WP:GNG here.
Again, Aragami and 2LDK already provide basically the same information as it is, so we don't need a third article that's this poorly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Japan. Bearcat (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The delete proposal seems sound. If the content is already explained elsewhere, basically restating it here won't help. Nothing really said here that's new. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel,Mississippi[edit]

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

Declined at AfC because it's been impossible to verify Bethel's existence to meet GEOLAND, but disruptively moved to mainspace so we're here. Note, there is a Bethel Mission on Natchez Trace, which may be notable as a historic site, but this does not appear to be that. Star Mississippi 03:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Mississippi. Star Mississippi 03:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure I have just indeffed the creator (Bernardblaze55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for moving additional copies of this into mainspace. I'm not sure what they're trying to do, but they'd been warned multiple times and this is disruptive. Star Mississippi 04:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've tried to find anything about the place, and have failed. Many false positives on the word "Bethel". Fails WP:GEOLAND 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNIS lists Bethels in several other counties in MS but not Oktibbeha. There are a handful of homes connected to the 3.5-mile Bethel Road, and they may call the neighborhood by that name, hence the Bethel Baptist Church where the page's coordinates point, but that doesn't make it a notable community without substantive sources. Reywas92^Talk 19:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The bio of one of the county supervisors says he grew up in the "Bethel community,"[14] so it exists as a place name at least in some local capacity. It does not appear in the Geographic Names Information System database, however, as Reywas92 notes. There are old references to it in the Starkville MS News, Starkville being the nearest large town. See eg [15], [16]. Creator appears to be a new editor unfamiliar with all our rules. Based on my limited research, a hard case for notability at this point.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete This shows up on topos as the church and the cemetery, period. People may treat them as the center of a general area, but there's no evidence I can see for a settlement here. Mangoe (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the off chance that this article is kept, it should probably be moved to Bethel, Mississippi. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Star Awards for Systema Charming Smile[edit]

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

Non-notable award. Couldn't find any reliable sources mentioning the award in any depth. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 02:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Singapore. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Star Awards. They haven't given out the award in a decade, and having a nice smile award is one of the least notable ones, in my mind. Oaktree b (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A search finds no results. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A promotional award designed to sell a certain company's products based not on merit, but going by both years, it was a fixed trophy, because the actor who did their ads as a 'brand ambassador' won the award. Sorry, Pornsak, I was pulling for you as a dark horse upset. Nate • (chatter) 22:41, 20 January 2023 (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 and salt by Bbb23 per G5. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pulinda Ekanayaka[edit]

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

I am afraid, this fails WP:JOURNALIST by a long margin. An obvious autobiography that has been draftified once before. Chanaka L (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Chanaka L (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chanaka L (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article currently contains no content. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One whole sentence about this guy? I don't find any sourcing at all. Long way from GNG or JOURNALIST. Oaktree b (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost a speedy delete. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article does not speak for itself and does not state biographical notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is an WP:AUTOBIO, clearly WP:SELFPROMOTION. Dan arndt (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per those above. I think this discussion should probably be closed early per WP:SNOW. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulinda Lakshitha Ekanayake, nothing has changed Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 19 January 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Smith (comedian)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Could not find significant coverage (being a common name doesn't help searches). Out of the supplied references, ref 2 is dead link and ref 3 is a small mention. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Australia. AllyD (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. subject not notable. - GA Melbourne (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any sources other than a single interview with him. OliveYouBean (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete - I ran a search for additional sources and managed to find this interview only: https://radiotoday.com.au/tim-smith-it-was-an-incredible-time-in-my-life/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThegaBolt (talk • contribs) 15:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Hower[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:NBIO; I cannot find two WP:GNG sources about the subject. Some WP:BLPCRIME information was removed from this article following my post to WP:BLPN#Chad Hower. The alleged crime associated with the subject does not meet WP:NCRIME. I believe the article should be deleted. Levivich (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Technology, Cyprus, Russia, Turkey, and Pennsylvania. Levivich (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a few brief mentions of his career, e.g. in Professional Programming From The Beginning Part 2 (2022) at 260: "Since its beginnings by Chad Z. Hower in 1993, Indy has evolved greatly and is now a comprehensive socket library available on several platforms"; Building Kylix Applications (2001) at 738; Mastering Borland Delphi 2005 at 759, but nothing in-depth, even with a combination of sources per WP:BASIC. He appears to be a nonpublic figure, and the limited/local coverage of the alleged crime does not seem appropriate to include per BLP policy. Beccaynr (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Here, I agreed with the Nominators' View. Sahilrazvii999 (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. 2A01:E0A:2C9:A5E0:74A0:FDAF:92DA:F0F5 (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changes will be made but this page should stay up. The coverage of the alleged crime is most definitely notable, I'm not sure how an alleged crime is not allowed to be discussed, especially when the point of the discussion is not to presume him guilty, it is to discuss how the case and controversy point to government wrongdoing. I do not know how wikipedia editing very well but I will try to bring this page up to standard. Do not delete. Cpg123123 (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are limited by various policies, including how to write about living people, and what Wikipedia is not. One of the policies is Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a means of promotion, which seems relevant due to available sources and after my unsuccessful search for secondary sources with independent context or commentary (e.g. WP:DEPTH) about the pending case, including on GScholar, the Wikipedia Library, and a legal research database. What we refer to as WP:BASIC notability (a notability guideline that outlines the type of sources needed for an article about a person) also does not seem supported at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article subject passes GNG with significant coverage by reliable sources. Serratra (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you post two examples of GNG sources? Levivich (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2023 (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.