< January 22	January 24 >

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 Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inggit Garnasih[edit]

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

Article fails GNG and NBIO and 1E. RS found are all just mentions, nothing that meets SIGCOV. The only reason this article exists is due to sources related to the spouse. They are mentioned in Sukarno#Personal life, there is no sourced material meriting a merge, no objection to a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 23:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTINHERITED, cam be merged or redirected to the spouse's article, but insufficient to remain as an article in its own right 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasoning stated above. Additionally, I did put this article into draft but the originally creator, Novia Ardiyanti (talk · contribs), made the draft redirect to the page that was eventually supposed to be deleted. Jack Reynolds (talk to me | email me) 23:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 00:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 00:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft I cleaned it up after the original creator moved it to mainspace. There are plenty of sources in Indonesian to meet SIGCOV. It just needs time to be worked on. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 00:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or keep, don't delete, assuming Arsonal is correct that there are plenty sources in Indonesian to meet SIGCOV. CT55555(talk) 05:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify at best. Article as is not quite ready for mainspace yet. NYC Guru (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify,if not delete.Article needs work. Alex-h (talk) 13:50, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mangoe (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Microelectronics[edit]

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

At this point, something of a WP:CORP1E situation, since the only apparent notability of this division is that IBM eventually sold it off as no longer profitable. There is probably somewhere where the one or two sentences of substance in this could be merged, but I see no reason for the article as it stands. Mangoe (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing based upon improved article. Mangoe (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with IBM: This has insufficient about it to keep as a stand alone article. Merged, the information is useful and usable 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC) Keep per WP:HEY 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~/merge~~, ~~meh, it's a stub, there is enough to keep it but a merge with History of IBM would be ok.~~ per WP:HEY SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 23:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have given it a six-fold expansion, adding many sources in the process which cover the division and its constituent plants in depth. DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to DigitalIceAge for a rewrite. Well done!. Pavlor (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, thanks to DigitalIceAge indeed! @Mangoe: if you do agree with this, this could become a procedural close. Thanks. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:31, 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 redirect to Redenção (album). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uma Música[edit]

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

Clearly fails all criteria of WP:NSONG. The article has notability tag from February 2010. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 16:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ It's certified Gold in Brazil, I think that's notable under MUSIC. Oaktree b (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First off, WP:MUSICBIO doesn't apply here. You're looking for WP:NSONG. Secondly, I haven't found anything else that would back up notability for the song. That Gold cert alone isn't gonna save it, and could easily be mentioned in the album/band article. Or at least it could be if I didn't think both of those articles are also no good and need to go as well. I'm voting to delete this and the album article, and also leaving a link to this AfD for the band here. If the band page gets kept then redirect both there. QuietHere (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, NSONG, is what I was thinking of. The "gold record" helps for notability, but we'd need a bit more sourcing to keep it. I'll scratch my vote above in a moment. Oaktree b (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think QuietHere was responding to the nominator, who used WP:MUSICBIO incorrectly. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I was, though the nominator has now corrected their original post so it's a moot point. QuietHere (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Redenção (album). Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 23:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Redenção (album) per nom. Jfire (talk) 04:43, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Sangeetha Katti[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NLIST. Songs have been copied from sites similar to discogs and no songs have standalone notabilty. Complete non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:V. scope_creep^Talk 01:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Similar articles do exist with even poorer sourcing. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Most of the films already have enough references and the songs may be traced upon searching on the web. Abbasulu (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is an WP:OSE argument. The fact that other articles exist with poorer sourcing is not a good reason to keep. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NLIST per nom. Artist doesn't have an article. SBKSPP (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V, no good reason to have an exhaustive list of songs recorded by a non-notable artist. No apparent WP:RS coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 29 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!} 23:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malayalam songs recorded by P. B. Sreenivas[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NLIST. Songs have been copied from sites similar to discogs and no songs have standalone notabilty. Complete non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:V. scope_creep^Talk 01:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Similar articles do exist with even poorer sourcing. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Most of the films already have enough references and the songs may be traced upon searching on the web. Abbasulu (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails both WP:NLIST and WP:SIGCOV, not to mention WP:VERIFY.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NLIST per nom. Artist doesn't have an article. SBKSPP (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - directory-style listing of non-notable songs that has no benefit to the project Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:11, 29 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!} 23:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by P. A. Periyanayaki[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NLIST. Songs have been copied from sites similar to discogs and no songs have standalone notabilty. Complete non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:V. The references here, reference the film, not the song for some reason. It is though the film is more important than the actual song which the article is about. It is likely there is virtually no references for these songs. scope_creep^Talk 01:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Similar articles do exist with even poorer sourcing. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Most of the films already have enough references and the songs may be traced upon searching on the web. Abbasulu (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non of the songs are referenced and non of the songs have articles. They are non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 22:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NLIST, WP:SIGCOV and WP:VERIFY.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to P. A. Periyanayaki. Fails WP:NLIST per nom. Part of the list can be covered there. SBKSPP (talk) 01:18, 28 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 University of San Francisco. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Residence halls at the University of San Francisco[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be independently notable ElKevbo (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with University of San Francisco // Timothy :: talk 00:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found no evidence that the subject meets GNG, but please ping me if good sources are identified. No objection to a Merge with University of San Francisco, but current sources aren't independent (except maybe one). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Does not support WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 13:57, 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 redirect to American Indoor Soccer League#Teams. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Mexico Storm[edit]

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

Article marked unreferenced for over a decade. I did not find any significant coverage about the subject, probably fails WP:GNG Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and United States of America. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I found one source [1], which is substantial, but I didn't find any other sources. Mucube (talk • contribs) 04:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to American Indoor Soccer League#Teams as possible search term. Giant Snowman 19:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Indoor Soccer League#Teams per GiantSnowman. The team lacks WP:SIGCOV to establish notability as a standalone article. This Seems like a reasonable WP:ATD. Frank Anchor 17:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Indoor Soccer League#Teams - fails GNG, no information worth merging currently so redirect should suffice. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 30 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 Runa Laila. Although there is already a list of awards won on the biography article so I question whether the tables would be a good addition. I'm leaving that decision to editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Runa Laila[edit]

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

As per most articles written by Abbasulu, this one fails both WP:V and WP:SIGCOV. Only 2 sources. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 17:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. FishandChipper 🐟🍟 17:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Broadly unsouced. BLP violation. Fails WP:NLIST. Assuming Laila is notable there si still no point in redirecting, but a merge may be useful if done wisely 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into her article; it's fine if you want to fork a section on their wins, but without any sort of discussion, this is just a chart. This can be reproduced at the bottom of her article, with no loss of information. Oaktree b (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to her article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:16, 22 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!} 21:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no sourced content to merge that is not already present in Runa Laila. If presenting the list as a bunch of brightly colored tables is thought better than the ordinary list there, I suppose the formatting could be merged. In any case, this clearly should not be a stand alone article at this time. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & user:Worldbruce. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:21, 29 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. There is a consensus to keep the article in some form. If people want to discuss a merge on the talk page, they can, but AfD is not needed for that. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lancelot F.C.[edit]

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

Not a notable club. No sources actually discuss the football club, all we have is one full match report and passing mentions in an overview of some matches. No better sources found elsewhere. Fram (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Football, and Scotland. Fram (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:FOOTYN, teams which play in the national cup competition are notable. There is at least one source which discusses the club given on the article as it is just now. Granted, there are a number of WP:ROUTINE match reports but I believe GNG can be met. ~~I would also suggest redirecting to List of football clubs in Scotland#Defunct clubs as an alternative to deletion.~~ Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- FOOTYN is an essay, it is not an accepted guideline. There is no reason to believe that clubs that play in a non-restrictive cup (as was the case here, or is the case still now for small countries) are notable just because they entered this competition. Such inherited notability is getting less and less accepted across enwiki. Which source actually discusses the club? Or do you mean that single match report? Fram (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the club's foundation and explanation of the club as a breakaway from a cricket club discusses the club rather than it just being a routine match report. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which source would that be? Fram (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of football in Scotland. The significance of Lancelot F.C. is that it formed so early, in the 1870s. It's more than "just another defunct club to add to the #Defunct clubs list" (and all the clubs listed at List of football clubs in Scotland are apparently individually notable). Even if it's just a few sentences, there are a couple of interesting facts and sources about Lancelot F.C. that could be moved to the History of football in Scotland page, and it would be greatly appreciated if the target page could also get a bit more attention and improvement at the same time. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus was to delete, I would support Cielquiparle's merge proposal as an alternative. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've put the reasons on the talk page; long story short is that the club was Notable in the mid-1870s (there are lots of match reports, it's not proportionate to include them all), and was more so than many clubs today which have their own wikipedia pages. After all, at the time, there were fewer than 50 out of the 200+ clubs in Scotland that did enter the Scottish Cup, and at the time Scotland was way ahead of England in terms of football ability. The club meets the somewhat vague GNG guidelines and until someone comes up with a better one specific to football clubs there's no reason why Lancelot should be excluded but (e.g.) Coylton Coyla or Scourie or Sandbach United F.C. should be kept. In Vitrio (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@In Vitrio The question is: Is there enough information ("significant coverage") of Lancelot F.C. in reliable secondary sources? We have to consider Lancelot F.C. on its own merit. (Never mind about the other club pages; best not to call attention to them unless you want to make them targets for deletion as well. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) I searched the British Newspaper Archive and got a handful of articles dating back to 1889 (exciting), but those were mainly passing mentions (and sometimes newspaper articles are primary sources). I searched the Internet Archive and only found a bunch of books mentioning a person named "Lancelot F.C. Thomas" (so not relevant). But if you happen to have access to one or two of the books on Scottish football history, and Lancelot F.C. is discussed there – *that* could help a lot in justifying a !keep. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@In Vitrio I just read the Talk page. Another page to look at is WP:ORGDEPTH. "Significant" has to do with quality not just quantity of information, and depth of information. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those other WPs, was not aware of them. The problem with finding other sources is that even a club like Thornliebank, which reached the final once, is barely, if ever, mentioned in history books (I've NEVER come across a reference to them other than in a list). If the club was never in the Scottish League, it gets swept aside. So the books mention Clackmannan County, but not the much more successful Clydesdale. The ultimate perhaps being not mentioning the first Helensburgh (semi-finalists) but instead the third (Scottish League for three seasons).

Lancelot at least had decent quality opponents, they were not like, say, Kerland or Gilbertfield who were stuck against 2nd XIs that year. One reason why I put up the page is because I kept finding references to them when researching Lancefield, which suggested that they were a cut above the normal sides, at least for a brief period, and so were Notable at the time - in context their coverage is broader than for other clubs who just have fixtures and occasional results. In Vitrio (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@In Vitrio Is there any way you could put the most important points in the History of football in Scotland page (regardless of the outcome of this AfD)? You seem like an excellent candidate to help fix that Wikipedia article; you're welcome to be BOLD and create sub-sections, delete questionable statements that are unsourced, find sources for plausible statements and cite them, and revise away, etc. I'm finding that all the context you are providing is super interesting (here and on the Talk page), and it would be very valuable to have that captured on the main subject page. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm flattered, but I would not consider myself an expert at all, and much of that page would require someone with better knowledge of the more contemporary game. The best I could say about Lancelot in the 'history' is that they were one of a surprisingly large number of the earliest clubs that came from cricket clubs (e.g. Clydesdale, Granville, Western, Blythswood); I had no idea how big cricket was in Scotland, or at least Glasgow at the time. In Vitrio (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as per Cielquiparle, a sensible alternative. Giant Snowman 20:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also lean towards keep, it's hard to determine the sources off hand, but there is enough to lead me to believe that the article is noteworthy. I also am at odds why merge into History of football in Scotland, a sentence or a few there might help, but certainly the whole content? It's not the right venue for that. So it doesn't seem the sensible choice. You could easily have a List of defunct Scottish football clubs, a couple of paragraphs on each club with links to main articles as needed and for the shorter article sizes to be merged in. However we don't currently have that, so that's another reason to keep WP:PRESERVE. Govvy (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion is moving towards preserving this content in some form, but consensus to keep or merge is not clear yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 14:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 20:57, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biotique[edit]

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

Promotional article MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and Uttar Pradesh. AllyD (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP as current medical practice is widely covered by Ayurveda. If the article seems promotional then remove then promotional content. Why delete? The article's sources might not be great but a simple Google and Google news search gives us enough coverage. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~WP:TNT~~ DELETE The slapdash fashion in which the (not always pertinent) references are used tells me that this was created for pay. But, that's not proof.

The sources all seem to be either the company's words,^[1]^[2]promo,^[3] routine coverage,^[4] gushing, sycophantic "articles", based entirely on interviews with the company's principals,^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10],purely promotional "articles"^[11]^[2]^[12] or complete nothingburgers that support nothing^[13]^[14]^[15]

Her education is only vaguely described ("Biotech[?!], Marketing, University of Delhi, Stanford"--they could be "certificates") and the "family lore" which gave rise to the company is, of course, sourced to Jain (but do we need to hear about it?). Better sources are needed, and non-promotional information needs to be mined from them, not ignored. As for sourcing, Indian journalism appears to take the advertorial to unimagined new heights. Having to wade through sentences like "At Biotique, hybrid^{[clarification needed]} plant and plant extracts are combined with biotechnology^[how?] to produce highly effective^{[citation needed]} products."^[5] OK, we are dealing with the marketing of snake oil here, but what kind of article can be written when all the journalistic sources are controlled by the company, which mostly spouts bullshit? Ignore the product and focus on the marketing? (they've teamed with Disney to sell stuff for kids)^[8] It's not entirely clear how this firm manages to combine Ayurveda with "biotechnology". But they do make lots of money. Edit: just had to share another gem:"She orchestrates a team of qualified Ayurvedic Doctors, Scientists and Swiss Cosmetologists who design, manufacture and pack all Biotique products."^[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quisqualis (talk • contribs)

^ "We don't sell products; we offer solutions, says founder chairperson of Biotique". Financialexpress.
^ ^a ^b "She learned the science of ayurveda from her gurus, and set up Biotique, a revolutionary brand: Meet the Beauty Queen, Vinita Jain – Outlook Business WoW". Outlook Business.
^ "The Queen Of Herbs Vinita Jain, founder of Biotique & Inspiring Indian woman Entrepreneur". Suger Mint. 27 July 2022.
^ "Biotique to invest Rs 200 cr for doubling capacity - ET Retail". ETRetail.com.
^ ^a ^b ^c Sangwan, Sujata. "Beauty And Biotech". BW Businessworld.
^ "Biotique's Vinita Jain: The Art of Blending Ancient Science with Modern Biotechnology". Knowledge at Wharton.
^ "From rituals to riches? - ET BrandEquity". Economic Times.
^ ^a ^b Singal, Aastha (19 September 2019). "Biotique is Testimony to Building a Brand without Traditional Marketing". Entrepreneur.
^ "How Biotique's Digital Business is Growing by Over 120 per cent Y-o-Y?". Indian Retailer.
^ "Sara Ali Khan shows 'Real is really beautiful' in Biotique's latest ad - ET BrandEquity". ETBrandEquity.com.
^ "10 Best Body Lotions for all Skin Types in India (November 2022)- Buyer's Guide". The New Indian Express.
^ Sharma, Ravi Teja. "It's a four-step process to stress-free life: Vinita Jain". The Economic Times.
^ "Lotus Herbals picks up minority stake in D2C beauty brand Conscious Chemist". VCCircle.
^ "Shehnaaz Gill posts new video, fans say 'we are with you'". The Indian Express. 15 November 2021.
^ "'I love Apple devices': Vinita Jain, Chairman, Biotique". Financialexpress.

Delete No NCORP pass. No RSP-approved sources. RPSkokie (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable and passes WP:NCORP. Promotional tone can be improve. Nick Jamie2 (talk) 05:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nick Jamie2. Which sources do you think meet WP:CORPDEPTH? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's all puffy words, and sourced to PR pieces. nothing I see for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article fails GNG and NCORP. Sources do not meet SIGCOV from RS. // Timothy :: talk 00:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This brand is serving India since 1992, it's very known and popular in today's generation. Subject meets WP:GNG and N:CORP. Accepts nominator's view that the article have a promotional tone, but it could be fixed. Sahilrazvii999 (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lets examine the first block of references:

Ref 1 [2] This funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

Ref 2 Nanocosmeceuticals: Innovation, Application, and Safety. Academic Press. Doesn't have a page number which sloppy editing, but it is passing mention. Page 472

Ref 3 [3] Interview with the founder. Fails WP:ORGIND.

Ref 4 [4] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

Ref 5 [5] PR. Fails WP:SIRS.

Ref 6 [6] Not specific to the article.

Ref 7 [7] Discussing the latest advert. Two small para. Not in-depth and not independent. Fails WP:SIRS.

Ref 8 [8] Growth news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

Ref 9 [9] Funding news. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

Ref 10 [10] This is a straight up advert.

Ref 11 [11] Another interview with the founder. Fails WP:ORGIND.

Not a single reference is a secondary ref that satisfies WP:SIRS. Changed from comment to delete. scope_creep^Talk 12:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After looking to the results in google, it's notable. See i am attaching those here: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] --- Misterrrrr (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Misterrrrr, please see WP:REFBOMB. Which of those sources do you think meets WP:CORPDEPTH? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, MrsSnoozyTurtle, as i understood Wikipedia:REFBOMB these references passes WP:GNG. I found one more also, [1] --- Misterrrrr (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you have not understood the meaning of WP:REFBOMB. Please refer to the first sentence: "A common form of citation overkill is loading up an article with sources without regard as to whether they support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic. This may boost the number of footnotes and create a superficial appearance of notability, which can obscure a lack of substantive, reliable, and relevant information." Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, MrsSnoozyTurtle pls try to Notify me, for the reply, I wasn't notified. --- Misterrrrr (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page is promotional, have founder's primary interviews, need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm adding my feedback after amending the article. Subject encounters WP:NCORP. Google provides a wealth of news. Of course, that does not imply that everything should be added here. POTLY (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, the article passes WP:GNG. Enough references to justify it's notability. Isihu (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Isihu. No new sources were added to the article, therefore I don't think that this is a case of WP:HEY. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am sympathetic to the hard-working PR department, but this company needs to be held to the same notability standards as everybody else. There are no good sources. BruceThomson (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:ORGCRIT section of the WP:NCORP policy includes The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. This is more than an issue of tone, it is about the Wikipedia is not a means of promotion policy. So we assess sources according to the WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND sections of the WP:NCORP guideline to help us determine what is a promotional article that should be deleted. For this article, WP:GOOGLEHITS are not enough to support notability, and we need to look closely at the available sources. The sources added by Misterrrrr above do not appear to add support for notability:

Biotique’s Vinita Jain: The Art of Blending Ancient Science with Modern Biotechnology (Knowledge at Wharton, 2010) - this is a Q&A interview with the founder, without any secondary commentary or critical coverage from the source or interviewer (who is not named), and is introduced "According to Jain", "Jain talks about", "She explains", and "Jain says", so this is not WP:ORGIND because she is related to the company, and produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties.
Best hair serums in India (Business Insider India, Jan 24, 2023) - this is not WP:CORPDEPTH because it is trivial coverage of a product or service offering - it is not significant coverage of the company itself but instead lists one of the products with other similar products, with a 4-sentence overview about the product and an Amazon link to buy it.
Views from the Top: Vinita Jain, CMD, Biotique (Economic Times, 2010) - this is a brief Q&A interview with a 2-sentence introduction, and she talks about her inspiration, her definition of an entrepreneur, her business mantra, her short list of advice to startups, etc, but this is neither WP:CORPDEPTH about the company nor WP:ORGIND produced by an unrelated party.
Use biotique products and get radiant, healthy skin (Google Translated) (Maharashtra Times, 2021) - this source begins with a general overview about the importance of skin care, and then moves on to descriptions and Amazon purchase links for several Boutique products. This is trivial coverage of a product or service offering instead of significant coverage of the company and appears to be native advertising.
GREEN AND VALUE BASED BUSINESS ECO-SYSTEM : Research Perspective (Vikrant Institute of Management, 2021) - the company is mentioned at p. 40 in a chapter discussing survey results related to cosmetics buying habits ("the most used brand is Biotique"), but this is a study of people, not the company, and does not include WP:CORPDEPTH.
This 27-year-old Brand Has Established Itself without Any Traditional Advertising (Entrepreneur India, 2019), this brief source is based on "[Ishaan] Jain boasts" and "he said" for the claim in the headline, as well as "he does admit" and "Jain stated" for other content, and the source includes a focus on his mother, the founder of the company. This also appears to be a narrative produced by a related party that does not pass WP:ORGIND, and the superficial coverage of the company history is limited WP:CORPDEPTH.
Are herbal products really that natural as advertised in India? (Economic Times, 2018) - this is trivial coverage because it is only two quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources.
Loaded with nutrients, face packs make for a great skincare indulgence (Hindustan Times, 2021) - this is trivial coverage of a product or service offering, with Amazon purchase links, and the HT notes, "Hindustan Times has affiliate partnership, so we may get a part of the revenue when you make a purchase."
There is similar trivial coverage about products in WP:TOI, i.e. [25], [26], as well as two WP:FORBESCON (not reliable) sources, i.e. [27], [28].
The Queen Of Herbs Vinita Jain, founder of Biotique & Inspiring Indian woman Entrepreneur (Sugermint, no date?) - this website describes itself as "Sugermint is India's fastest-growing digital marketing platform for Indian entrepreneurs." This is not an independent and reliable source we can use to support notability for the company. This is a superficial puff piece about Jain and the company.
And as noted above by Scope creep, the mention of the company in a chart on one page of a source on GBooks is not WP:CORPDEPTH.

Based on the source analyses in this discussion and the guidelines and policies, delete seems appropriate at this time, due to insufficient support for notability. Beccaynr (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, will look into and try to make no mistakes in future. But, as i understood and read the Content, it seems to be good. Well, i quoted my View about it. Experienced editor may understand a new editor. Thanks --- Misterrrrr (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have adjusted the article and found this see [29] it meets WP:CORPDEPTH.Epcc12345 (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that, @Epcc12345. It's a thinly-disguised advert for Biotique, aimed at the Nigerian market:

A Nigerian skincare expert , Mrs Rosemary has urged Nigerians to use naturally formulated creams and Ayurvedic products like Biotique, Dabur, Visha Skincare, Himalayan Organics and Wander Beauty to avoid skin burns which are usually associated with "harsh unnatural creams".

More Findings about India based Biotique says that it has an operational footprint in more than 10 countries.

The firm is a women-led, self-sufficient biobased product company founded by Vinita Jain.

According to publications sources from economic times India. The beauty company was founded in 1992. Basically, Biotique is a unique blend of the 5,000-year-old science of Ayurveda with 21st century biotechnology. So in that sense Biotique is a global brand because it combines East and the West, the ancient and the modern and brings to you a platform for total health, well-being and beauty.

Please find us more from the experts, @Epcc12345.

Wishing you "total health, well-being and beauty."-- Quisqualis (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QuisqualisThank you for the regards. It was written from NPOV not an advert because when I made further findings the said expert Rosemary Kama is not related to biotique but only giving general advice like see this 6 months publications [30] it a related publications but from another dimension.Also This is her firm website [31] to prove the said expert doesn't have an affiliation with biotique but only rendering her view which makes that reference to pass WP:CORPDEPTH and not a publicity for nigeria market from your assumption.Thanks.Epcc12345 (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive me for chuckling, @Epcc12345, but medical claims by non-experts are not at issue here. See WP:MEDRS. What Kama says is unsourced and would be regarded as complete nonsensical fluff by scientists. You'd do best to ignore it. Sometimes one has to listen to the voice of common sense and not consume the Kool-Aid.-- Quisqualis (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2023 (UTC)EDIT: What Kama is saying is that some chemical skin-lighteners can be dangerous, and Ayurveda should be used instead. However, there is no scientific evidence that Ayurvedic skin lighteners are safe an effective, though, for most people, their use has fewer dangers. Kama is either duped or paid by manufacturers, as are the majority of beauty "experts". Even the purveyors of Ayurvedic skin lighteners avoid touting the effectiveness of their products, instead focusing on vague promises including youth, brightness, clearness, "tone". Biotique sells a "brightening" cream containing "Key Ingredients: Pure extracts of milk protein, wheatgerm, almond oil, honey and seaweed" which I believe was once offered as a whitening cream. Do you think it can change the color of a person's epidermis? I don't. Quinine is South American, so not Ayurvedic, but it has a long track record as a topical skin whitener, despite not being entirely safe. Just because snake oil is written about by snake oil salesmen doesn't make their claims in depth and reliable. Biotique is a corporation which is very marketing-oriented, but nobody writes about their clever marketing. They credulously repeat what the marketing says.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article fails notability criteria for WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, and the article is basically WP:PROMO and WP:ADMASQ that may be a case of UPE. The citations seem like PR placement. Netherzone (talk) 00:04, 30 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!} 04:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flint Juventino Beppe[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; no evidence of significant coverage in secondary sources. The article only cites one secondary source which doesn't include Beppe's name. Apparently the source mentions a "Fred Jonny Berg," which the Wikipedia article claims is a name formerly used by Beppe, but fails to provide any evidence to support this. Also, it appears the source isn't actually about "Fred Jonny Berg" and only mentions him. Other sources cited are dead links. A Google search finds just primary sources such as his websites, blog, social media, etc. Baronet13 (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Bands and musicians, Germany, and Norway. Skynxnex (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. 13:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:52, 16 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!} 20:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find anything on it, apart from Fort Worth Weekly [32] that states he is a German composer. No social media worth looking at and nothing on the streaming services. Possibly very early stage career. He real name seems to "Fred Berg" a Norwegian, but can't find anything on him. The state of the article attests to the fact there is no coverage on him. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO, WP:NCOMPOSER scope_creep^Talk 13:06, 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. While there is some interest in merging, there is no consensus on whether or where that should happen. The consensus of editors here is that the article should not exist standalone. If a consensus can be developed on what and where to merge, that can of course be facilitated at that time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

747 Uppingham–Leicester[edit]

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

Non-notable bus route with no significant history to make it worth retaining. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a pretty standard bus route, nothing notable has happened along its route. I don't find any sources that talk about it; coverage given as sourcing in the article is routine discussion about the route. Oaktree b (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per source assessment table below. "Routine" and "a pretty standard bus route" are not valid reasons for deletion when we have multiple reliable sources that meet WP:GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE. It describes the bus route and various changes made to it, it's all standard bus route stuff. Replace this route name in the article with any other from anywhere else on the planet and it would read the same. Oaktree b (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE applies to events, not bus routes. Garuda3 (talk) 08:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.centrebus.info/media/3215/route-747-01092021.pdf			Official timetable	✘ No
https://liberalengland.blogspot.com/2016/11/save-747-leicester-to-uppingham-bus.html	?	Blog	Article focuses on using the route, and its potential withdrawal	✘ No
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/key-bus-service-keep-going-3662125			Article dedicated to the route	✔ Yes
https://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/747-bus-to-continue-for-another-year-9093855/			Article dedicated to the route	✔ Yes
https://oakham.nub.news/news/local-news/funding-agreement-to-support-uppingham-to-leicester-747-bus-service			Article dedicated to the route	✔ Yes
https://www.harboroughmail.co.uk/news/people/harborough-rural-bus-service-has-been-saved-least-another-year-1345800			Article dedicated to the route	✔ Yes
https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/business/bus-firm-shut-depot-it-faces-fall-customers-1108692			Passing mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

I'm also disappointed that no WP:ATD was considered. Either Leicester or Centrebus are potential merge targets, though I feel it is beneifical for this content to have its own article so it is easier to find. Garuda3 (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon many many bus routes in the UK have media coverage in local newspapers when there are timetable changes, funding changes or other things happen. That doesn't make them notable. This is literally nothing more than a local bus route. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having coverage in newspapers is what defines notability. WP:GNG does not exclude local coverage. This is literally nothing more than a local bus route. is irrelevant. Just because this article doesn't interest you doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in the wiki. Garuda3 (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are all about funding changes to the route, there's more about the cancellation or not of the route, than about the route itself. It doesn't serve any notable landmarks, isn't a historic route or have any famous drivers. There seem to be no construction scandals that took place along the route, or much of anything else that differentiates it from any other bus route on the planet. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that bus routes are being slashed and withdrawn across the country is notable in itself and worthy of documenting. Bus routes are a lifeline for non-drivers. Once again if the coverage is there, the route doesn't have to be "special" in any way to warrant an article. There is no space limit on Wikipedia Garuda3 (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another run-of-the-mill bus route with no redeeming features or any long standing history. Routine coverage only, and at local level, does not satisfy notability requirements. Ajf773 (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect if a good target can be found (I didn't see an obvious one from a quick search), otherwise delete. Perhaps a brief mention in the articles on the communities served by the bus would be helpful? Bus routes aren't automatically notable, and WP:LOCAL, while an essay, does reflect common community consensus on topics that only receive local coverage, such as this bus route. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per detailed source assessment by Garuda3, the topic is notable and meets the WP:GNG. Merge could still be considered yet there is no great merge option. A47 road comes closest. This is a lengthy article that should not contain the nits and grits of 747 Uppingham–Leicester. In the bottom line, 747 Uppingham–Leicester is both notable and a legitimate spinoff of A47 road. gidonb (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gidonb: All those sources are about funding and there's absolutely nothing that makes this bus route stand out. Just because it follows a random A road, that doesn't make it notable; there are literally thousands of bus routes in the UK that follow A road. Your argument doesn't give any reason why this bus route is particularly special in comparison with the many others which all got deleted through AfD. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And also, the bus route follows under 20 miles of the 192-mile A47 road. This is just a really poor argument and doesn't take into account Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. It doesn't stand out. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how four local articles covering the exact same thing (funding being added for 1 year) shows notability; in fact, I don't think I'd even consider them significant coverage at all because of how short they are. As alluded to immediately above, this fails to pass WP:MILL. GNG is more complex than "if you find two sources it's automatically notable". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the road doesn't make the bus line notable. The references do! A common reaction to good sources is about supposed carveouts: the sources are about this or that. For example, folks often say all the sources mentioned about the company are its locations, its finance, its staff, its operations. Well, that pretty much summed up the company. Same here. I don't fall for that. The subject either is or isn't notable. This bus line clearly is notably and that much has been proven. STILL, even after that, I seriously consider merge options. And OFTEN opt for that option. To the great annoyance of the preservationists! As explained, in this case even that was irrelevant. gidonb (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you didn't read what I said. I said I do not think the sources are significant coverage. But go off. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did read what you said. You also made an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument of sorts. I do not have to react to everything. I never ever implied that all or even most bus lines are notable. This one had profitability problems and a funding fight around it. People depend on this service and this went noted. You tried to use this against it. But it really assists notability. gidonb (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, funding issues don't automatically make a bus route notable. They're an everyday thing and a normal thing across the country with various bus routes and that doesn't make it notable. It's still WP:MILL. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MILL is an essay. It doesn't trump WP:GNG, which this article passes. Garuda3 (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, funding issues don't automatically make a bus route notable No kidding! The keyword that makes this statement (automatically?) true is "automatically". The process, however, is far from automatic. It is evidence-based and any issues can succeed or fail in making something notable. It's all about the WP:GNG. The rest are just distractions. gidonb (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bickering
::::::No, it really doesn't, but I'm not going to continue going back and forth when you've already made up your mind based on your feelings rather than policies and guidelines. The closer can evaluate the strength (or lack thereof, in your case) of the arguments. I've said my piece. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] False personal attacks never convey strength. If you do not have valid arguments, just stop writing under someone's opinion! gidonb (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] I have no interest in engaging with you and your misrepresentations further (if you think what I said is a personal attack, which it isn't by any definition, I can't wait to see how you respond to an actual personal attack). How about you take your own advice and leave me be? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bickering

::::::No, it really doesn't, but I'm not going to continue going back and forth when you've already made up your mind based on your feelings rather than policies and guidelines. The closer can evaluate the strength (or lack thereof, in your case) of the arguments. I've said my piece. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

False personal attacks never convey strength. If you do not have valid arguments, just stop writing under someone's opinion! gidonb (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in engaging with you and your misrepresentations further (if you think what I said is a personal attack, which it isn't by any definition, I can't wait to see how you respond to an actual personal attack). How about you take your own advice and leave me be? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And we do not have carveouts for regional or local press either. We scrutinize such sources a bit closer. That's all. gidonb (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why the references make it notable when they're all about funding; I scrutinised the 5 sources in the table above that had significant coverage in green, all of them about funding. Is it a popular route used by plenty of tourists? No. Has anything special happened to this route during its history? No. Especially when the coverage is all about just funding which doesn't make it notable. And I don't see any proof of its notability. I still want to know what makes this bus route special that it's not WP:MILL compared to other bus routes that have been deleted through AfD. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BUSOUTCOMES, while not policy, is worthwhile to note here. General community consensus is individual bus routes operating on city streets are not notable (as opposed to say a dedicated BRT corridor/busway). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Answered above. My position is that most bus lines are NOT notable. This one is. My reasoning is data-driven, as AfD opinions should be. Each AfD and its very special circumstances that support keeping, deleting, merging, or redirecting. gidonb (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you only recognise these OUTCOMES pages when they suit you. You dismissed anyone citing WP:RAILOUTCOMES at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neiwei railway station Garuda3 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bickering
::::::I am happy to discuss the relevance or lack thereof of OUTCOMES essays on my talk page or elsewhere, but I'm not going to engage with this AfD further since gidonb will bludgeon to death anything I add. I am kind of impressed you went back 10 months ago, before the train station notability RfC occurred and proved that train stations had no inherent notability, proving my position reflected community consensus and yours did not. That AfD was hampered by limited participation, and included the thoroughly policy-ignorant vote of Keep. Consensus has long been that all railway stations are notable and WP:CONSENSUS most certainly is a policy. I'm not invested enough in bus articles to launch a similar RfC, lucky you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] It's not the first time this user misbehaved in this AfD. They now decided to project their shortcomings on someone else. So be it! gidonb (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the personal attack. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bickering

::::::I am happy to discuss the relevance or lack thereof of OUTCOMES essays on my talk page or elsewhere, but I'm not going to engage with this AfD further since gidonb will bludgeon to death anything I add. I am kind of impressed you went back 10 months ago, before the train station notability RfC occurred and proved that train stations had no inherent notability, proving my position reflected community consensus and yours did not. That AfD was hampered by limited participation, and included the thoroughly policy-ignorant vote of Keep. Consensus has long been that all railway stations are notable and WP:CONSENSUS most certainly is a policy. I'm not invested enough in bus articles to launch a similar RfC, lucky you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the first time this user misbehaved in this AfD. They now decided to project their shortcomings on someone else. So be it! gidonb (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the personal attack. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also did not say OUTCOMES was gospel, or "delete per BUSOUTCOMES" (in fact, I suggested a merge or redirect above outright deletion), while you have certainly argued "Keep per RAILOUTCOMES". I said it was worth noting, not that it was decisive. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outcomes should not inform decision making because they lead to circular reasoning. Instead, one should always let the data lead and analyze each case independently, by policies and guidelines. gidonb (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well written article, and the subject is notable. Serratra (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to the Transport section, subheading Buses, in Uppingham. I would have suggested merging this into an article entitled "Funding of UK bus routes" or such like but haven't come across one. Instead, a merge to the Uppingham page is valid. The impact of the route's loss would be greater on Uppingham than Leicester. I don't think the article should be kept as it's basically a local news story, and the sources put forward are local newspaper coverage of the funding issue. If it had received national coverage, I'd have considered keep. Rupples (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jengod (talk) 22:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTVOTE. Please be more specific as to why. Ajf773 (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I voted keep because I think Wikipedians have an overall systemic bias in favor of private vehicles against mass transit, bicycles, etc. jengod (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Yep, you've caught me. I have a systemic bias against mass transit. I especially hate trains and want them all deleted, and definitely would never write any articles about them. Cars are the way forward. Robert Moses was the smartest man to ever live. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bus lines are the red-headed stepchild of mass transit but buses and bus riders are good. We should treat them better, including on Wikipedia. That's just like my opinion man. jengod (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever is analysing this discussion doesn't care if you like bus routes or not. They want to understand how this article is compliant with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Ajf773 (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm saying our guidelines are deranged when it comes to transit stuff. jengod (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article meets GNG. I've added an additional source since publishing the source analysis above. Garuda3 (talk) 07:48, 23 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!} 20:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: could we consider a merger to something like "List of bus routes in [Uppingham/Leicester]", or "Bus transportation in [Uppingham/Leicester]"? Aside from the obvious problems with local coverage, we're also wandering into NOTDATABASE territory here. I also find the reference to systemic bias ironic; the average bus line in Japan, or Indonesia, or Nigeria, is likely to be used by far, far more people, and we don't have articles on those. I also don't see how schedule changes or operator changes are encyclopedic in and of themselves, especially when it's very likely that these are non-exhaustive. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A list of bus routes in Leicester is unlikely, considering this AfD outcome: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Leicestershire. Most likely merger (if it ends up that way) would be for Uppingham. Ajf773 (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a merge would be beneficial as you either only have content in one place (how to decide where?) or have duplication across multiple articles. Better to have an article with the route info and link to it where appropriate allowing those interested to find out more.

I'm not convinced Wikipedia:NOTDATABASE is relevant here - none of the four bullets appear to fit.

As for what is encyclopedic or not, Wikipedia has always been so much more than just a traditional encyclopedia. Cutting it down to what you'd find in a paper encyclopedia would involve deleting most of the wiki. Garuda3 (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is ultra-local and is mostly WP:ROUTINE annoucements as references, the article itself is entirely non-enclyclopedic and has no historical depth. The stuff about funding is about as generic as its possible to get. scope_creep^Talk 13:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ROUTINE is part of the events guideline and thus isn't applicable here. How is it non encyclopedic? Garuda3 (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is entirely routine. BruceThomson (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Totally routine. Nothing remarkable here at all. The four articles counted towards GNG by @Garuda3 all say almost exactly the same thing (probably all based on the same press release) and all date from the same week in December 20-19, more than three years ago. I would have suggested merging to Centrebus if there was anything interesting to merger, but there really isn't. Nwhyte (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Notability isn't temporary. Once notability has been established (as it has been here), it doesn't expire. "interesting" is subjective. The rest of your comment is pure Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT. Garuda3 (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think we are really getting into the weeds if we think local newspaper articles about timetable changes mean that specific bus routes are notable. Personally I think there is an argument for a page discussing bus routes by area or bus company. Otherwise I just can't see how we are to determine between one bus-route and another (also, potentially, this will mean that a bus route only becomes notable when it is cut and then covered in local media. That can't be right, can it?) JMWt (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by your comment. We have various places this could be merged to. If you support bus content on Wikipedia, why are you voting to delete?

As for what routes are notable, this is exhibited with all topics on Wikipedia. Trying to cover every single bus route in the world would be silly but what we can do is cover those that are written about in reliable, independant sources.

Finally, there is a misconception that a "local" paper somehow doesn't count for notability. WP:GNG does not exclude local coverage. Garuda3 (talk) 21:51, 31 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 It Won't Be Soon Before Long. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goodnight Goodnight (Maroon 5 song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Most of this article consists simply of statements of facts regarding its release (it appears to have only been officially released in one country in the world) and its accompanying video, which aren't indications of notability, and are mostly cited to some very poor sources that fail WP:RS. The only two claims to fame are the fact that it was used by a TV channel to promote the season's new line-up, and that it allegedly reached number one in Hong Kong, although I'm not sure there are any official Hong Kong music charts, and there is absolutely no way of verifying this claim, as the article re-creator admits the web page has been lost forever [33], so we are supposed to simply accept his word for it. In any case, I am baffled by the statement in the lead that the song apparently reached number one before it was released – as this was 2008 and before streaming was included in the charts, I don't understand how it would be possible to reach number one without being available to purchase or stream in any way. So all we have here is a promotional campaign, and a non-verifiable supposed number one – I don't see how there is enough here to pass WP:NSONG, but the article has been recreated repeatedly after redirecting to It Won't Be Soon Before Long, which would be my preferred option. Richard3120 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination. Looks to be a failure of NSONGS. I would need to see proof of hitting number 1 in Hong Kong before I could even begin to factor that in. I have a hard time understanding how this American band would have a Hong Kong number one with a song that failed to chart anywhere else in the world, in an era before songs really "went viral" to boot. Sergecross73 msg me 20:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An old version of this page had the source. I'm trusting that. BoxxyBoy (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have never had any Hong Kong music chart recognized as official on Wikipedia. I'd like to know what the old version of the article was using as the "Hong Kong chart". Richard3120 (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look in the version history. BoxxyBoy (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BURDEN is on you to convince people that this dead link should be trusted. Why should we even believe it was a reliable source at all? Sergecross73 msg me 22:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the dead link address in the edit history. It's a series of numbers followed by ".com", which isn't the kind of web address normally associated with a reliable chart provider. And it was added by an editor whose talk page is full of complaints from other editors about adding unreliable chart sources. Richard3120 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. Hitting number one in a national chart is not typically a difficult to source feat. It's very suspect that we can't find a source for this, doubly so with this particular band/song/country combo. Sergecross73 msg me 21:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to It Won't Be Soon Before Long: Even if the Hong Kong chart were reliable, the song doesn't meet any other tenets of NSONG, nor the GNG, and that chart alone would not save this. Was a very late single release (a year and a half after the album), not very surprising that it didn't get as much coverage as the prior singles. QuietHere (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to It Won't Be Soon Before Long. Fails WP:NSONG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:16, 28 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!} 21:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amanush Holo Manush[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about an as yet unreleased film, not properly sourced as the subject of sufficient production coverage to override the primary notability criteria for films at WP:NFO. As always, we do not want to indiscriminately maintain an article about every single film that enters the production pipeline — even films that start production can still fail to ever actually be completed or released, and/or can be completed and released yet still fail to surpass any of our notability tests for films.
So films aren't automatically entitled to have articles just because it's possible to show a small handful of production coverage while they're in the pipeline — that's permitted in the case of very high-profile projects that can show so much production coverage that even if they failed they'd still be notable failures anyway, but is not automatically extended to every film that enters production. There are just four footnotes here, however, and even one of those is merely the caption to a photograph rather than substantive coverage.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation if and when it is released and starts garnering the critical reviews that are much more central to establishing the permanent notability of a film -- but just having a couple of casting announcements isn't enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Too soon. Mehedi Abedin 20:43, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball recruiting history[edit]

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

A Kentucky basketball-flavored case of WP:LISTCRUFT. The article has a number of issues as it is - it's outdated, it's unsourced, it doesn't do enough to distinguish itself as more notable than a potential List of Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball players, the name makes no sense - but even if all of those issues were fixed, I don't see where this makes sense to be broken out separately, instead of merging the relevant info into Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball. fuzzy510 (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Kentucky. fuzzy510 (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Basketball. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:20, 16 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!} 18:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia certainly is NOT Rivals.com or MaxPreps. This is of interest only to a niche group of recruiting fans. Nate • (chatter) 20:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom that while a list of players generally may be appropriate, organizing by recruit class is not. Reywas92^Talk 23:27, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uthuvayankulam[edit]

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

Yes I did nominate it, but the nomination didn't go fully through as it included two blacklisted sources of satellite pro. One showed a locality of an other name but included a mention of the correct name by "google" at the top of the screen and the other one a satellite image of a few houses in the countryside. Additionally there is currently no source and much more than Wikipedia derivatives and weather and touristic sites do not appear with a WP:BEFORE Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google books shows several snippets that demonstrate its real and recorded in RIS, but notability is hard to assess based on that. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 14:50, 16 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!} 18:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete I was unable to verify any of this article. Mangoe (talk) 23:45, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of time periods[edit]

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

This article is basically a list of periods that could be integrated with Human history. I think it should be either deleted or redirected. Interstellarity (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm not a big fan of outlines but this is a reasonable subarticle of Outline_of_history#History_by_period, which links to this, or it could be merged there. Reywas92^Talk 16:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also the WP:Articles for deletion/History by period discussion from October. TompaDompa (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the merge. These articles have different approaches, both having value. Libcub (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly do not merge anywhere. This is explicitly a list and is useful as a reference tool for ensuring that numerous terms used to describe periods in history are used correctly. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 22 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!} 18:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete I just don't see what good this article does. The presentation reinforces the impression that it is a indiscriminate collection of groups of timelines that otherwise have nothing to do with each other. Mangoe (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Peterkingiron, locating these articles can be difficult. Dimadick (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a list, this page is a very valuable reference with its own merits unique from those of Outline_of_history#History_by_period. Merging wouldn’t be feasible here. Serratra (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Reywas92, Libcub, Peterkingiron, Dimadick and Serratra. Vast in its scope, this is a distinctively developed and thoroughly linked outline which certainly stands on its own in providing invaluable service to those engaged in historical research. This entry has existed for over twenty years, having been created on September 17, 2002, and has engendered helpful discussions at Talk:List of time periods. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:20, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bea Mendez-Gandica[edit]

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

CEO doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks coverage that is both independent and of sufficient depth. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Venezuela, and Wisconsin. AllyD (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've improved the article a bit and looked for sources, but could not find anything to support notability. I'll gladly reverse this is anyone can show sources to support notability. CT55555(talk) 19:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I de-PROD'd this one after adding multiple sources. I also cannot find more, but I feel like there should be other sources that I am missing. She is not the first American Association for the Advancement of Science IF/THEN Ambassador to come up at AfD, but I was more successful in finding sources for the others. Frankly, given the display of orange statues that have been making their way around the United States, I am surprised that there is not wider coverage of the people who had their likenesses represented. DaffodilOcean (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have found several sources about Mendez-Gandica ([34][35][36][37][38][39][40]), some of which have already been inclued in the article. I would normally lean towards a weak keep, but the issue that I see is that they apparently lack independence or depth. --NoonIcarus (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the new sources above by Noonlcarus, most are interviews and many are from her University. The Discovery Channel seems to be the best one, we don't really have Discover as a RS, but I see no reason why this would be faked. I really don't want to delete it, she's doing good in the world and telling her story would help support the fight against bias on Wiki; female, US minority, women in science, these are all things she's championing. It's still a Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried making findings and searching for source to support but wasn't able to find any, would have voted for it to be draftify so it can be work on but for now I think a delete seems ideal.Epcc12345 (talk) 08:26, 30 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 Woodman (ship). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Woodman (1804 ship)[edit]

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

No evidence found of any notability for this ship. Fram (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I do not see anything near the amount of coverage needed to meet GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN; alternatively merge to Woodman (ship). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How deleting this article about a ship that was shipnapped by pirates and swiftly rescued in any way bettering this encyclopedia? jengod (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I would prefer to Keep, but perhaps a careful merge will limit the unnecessary destruction of information. I am still baffled to understand how destroying information makes an encyclopedia better, or makes it possible for the article to improve, but wiser, more thoughtful people than I apparently disagree.Acad Ronin (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. What Merge article are you proposing be the target Acad Ronin?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, I would merge the article with the entry in the Woodman ship index. Acad Ronin (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acad Ronin, I was hoping for a link so I don't have to go searching for a page you are referring to. I look at a lot of AFDs every day. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Woodman (ship)

Merge into Woodman (ship) per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE, as proposed by Acad Ronin. Please merge especially references, testifying to the historicity of the vessel. These are completely missing from the list! gidonb (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Woodman (ship) per others. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 10:03, 28 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian New Zealanders[edit]

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

Small group, which doesn't appear to have been the subject of significant coverage. The only source cited in the article is for the population figure. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Austria, and New Zealand. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have updated the article with the more recent (2018) census [41]. Although at present that is only being used to support the population figure, there is much more information there which could provide material with which to expand the article (although we'd need to be careful to avoid basing large portions of this article on that, per WP:PRIMARY). I have also come up with [42] which provides significant coverage of Austrians in New Zealand, including the history and their cultural contributions. These two sources are sufficient for me to think that the topic is notable; the list of notable Austrians suggests that there would be further sources on individual Austrians which could legitimately be used to expand the article further. WJ94 (talk) 14:34, 9 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!} 09:18, 16 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!} 18:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is no significant coverage by independent secondary sources. The 2018 Cencus is neither independent nor secondary. Cinadon36 08:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Cinadon. --Spekkios (talk) 19:46, 27 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 Perl. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's more than one way to do it[edit]

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

the two sources are some programmer's blog and python's (?!) offical site. lettherebedarklight 晚安 08:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. lettherebedarklight 晚安 08:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge I added a journal reference, and there's lots of book references turning up in searches. If not keep, merge to Perl. PianoDan (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@pianodan: interviews don't contribute to notability. lettherebedarklight 晚安 01:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the interview is in a reliable source, why wouldn't it? Linux Journal is a long established publication. True, quoting Wall himself could be considered a primary, rather than secondary, source of information, but LJ chose to publish the interview. That interview CERTAINLY counts as supporting notability for Wall himself (not that he needs it), so the argument is whether the mention in that particular article is substantial enough to contribute to notability for the concept, NOT whether interviews themselves are generally off limits for GNG. PianoDan (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what makes linux journal a reliable source? lettherebedarklight 晚安 10:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't it be? It was an established print journal for over two hundred issues. PianoDan (talk) 17:17, 23 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!} 18:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or possibly merge to Perl. It's easy enough to substantiate, but we might not need a whole page devoted to a slogan. XOR'easter (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Perl. The article has very little content and we probably don't need an entire article on a slogan anyways. Mucube (talk • contribs) 04:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Perl, per reasoning of Mucube and others — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinadon36 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More sources have been added since the article's nomination, and we have articles on other programming slogans such as Don't repeat yourself. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Being mentioned is not significant coverage. The added sources aren't enough to establish independent notability. Cover it in context of its parent article, and don't merge the unreliable sources. czar 02:37, 30 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 disambiguation issue has been manually dealt with by Materialscientist, and the new target article is unambiguously notable. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jerzy Miller[edit]

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

This is not a true DAB, because there's only one Jerzy Miller at this point. The other is a redlink. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went bold and deleted it, by moving the only reasonable alternative article into the dab. Correct me at will. Materialscientist (talk) 04:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Materialscientist: Please don't move a page this way during an AfD, it is confusing for other editors and means we can't see the previous dab page, work out whether the red link needed a blue link, etc. But if you do move a page, please tidy up the incoming links - I've fixed those in two templates: ((Ministers of the Interior of Poland)) and ((Donald Tusk Cabinet)). PamD 15:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is very confusing. It looks like the argument revolved around https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Jerzy+Miller&timestamp=20230116080120 and in turn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Jerzy_Miller_(poet) which is empty, so the MOS:DABRL standard isn't met. However, pl:Jerzy Miller indicates more possibly notable people, and a lack of primary topic there, so maybe this issue merits more investigation by Polish editors. --Joy (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some action was taken apparently but it is still tagged for an AFD discussion so we need to close this discussion on the current page and no opinions have been expressed about whether this article should be Kept, Redirected, Merged or Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no specific confirmation that the biographical entry for the former Polish cabinet member is being nominated for deletion, but it should be noted that Jerzy Miller is a prominent participant in the fiscal governance of Poland as exemplified in the detail of his entry in Polish Wikipedia which can translated for inclusion in his English Wikipedia entry. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: He held office at national level so clearly passes WP:NPOL. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Having held office at a national level, he clearly passes criterion #1 of WP:NPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 18:06, 27 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!} 19:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NSS College Rajakumari[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Only given sources are WP:PRIMARY and I couldn't located any good independent ones. Primarily edited by COI/UPE users. Alternative to deletion could be to merge with Mahatma Gandhi University. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Only primary sources provided.LibStar (talk) 08:52, 27 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!} 19:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Mazariegos[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable small town mayor. While there is a little coverage, it is very local and superficial, and does not provide significant coverage. Curbon7 (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Spain. Curbon7 (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors (especially mayors of small towns) are not inherently notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because they exist, and have to pass a heightened standard that hinges on the depth and quality of the article and its sourcing — but this is very poorly written and completely unsourced. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 30 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!} 19:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Damnjanović[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Angelo (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; the only coverage I can find is match reports in Sportski žurnal, a random match preview in a local Opovo-based magazine, and statistical database entries. Jogurney (talk) 19:46, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Komljenović[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Angelo (talk) 23:03, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Knežević[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Angelo (talk) 23:03, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vahid Bogučanin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Angelo (talk) 23:04, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siniša Jeremić[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and no top division matches. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Angelo (talk) 23:04, 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 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!} 19:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kamberua[edit]

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

Created from what was later identified as an unreliable source ([43]), I don't see non-clickbait GHits that use this name. There is a town a little south named Kambirwa according to GMaps, and there are legit GHits for that, but I don't see moving this article to that name seeing as how this name seems spurious; better to create an article for the real place from scratch. Mangoe (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Kazamzam (talk) 18:57, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lumin Education[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SCHOOL. Failed to find reliable non-primary sources online. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I appreciate what this NGO is doing, but this subject doesn't passes WP:GNG and WP:SCHOOL as the nominator mentioned. Sahilrazvii999 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:52, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nemanja Solujić[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely fails GNG. Found a passing mention in bbglas.rs but almost no other coverage apart from the basic databases like Besoccer and Tribuna Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Angelo (talk) 23:04, 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 redirect to List of South Park characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of South Park Elementary staff[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

List of South Park characters is expected, reasonable and quite sufficient. We don't need sublists of characters by profession, location, etc. (List of South Park families, List of students at South Park, List of recurring South Park characters...). Coud consider merger, but 99% of what we have here is unreferenced plotcruft that fails WP:LISTN. PS. I'll note that the prior AfD was an abysmal chorus of WP:ITSIMPORTANT/WP:INHERITED... hope we can do better this time. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A lot of the the arguments in the previous AFD were centered on the fact that combining these characters into the main List of South Park characters list would make it too long. But, that isn't true at all due to the fact that the only reason this article itself is so long is because its filled with tons of completely non-notable characters and information. The actual major and reoccurring characters from this list (Chef, Mr. Garrison, Mr. Mackey, etc.) are already covered on the main character list. And, basically the entirety of the rest are extremely minor characters that appeared in a single episode, and would not be appropriate to include in the main character list at all. As the character that should be covered on the main list already are, and the characters that are too minor to be covered on the main list are so trivial as to not need coverage at all, this is a completely unneeded spinout article/list. And since the vast bulk of the information here is unsourced, merging would not be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all: Redirect to WP:PRESERVE page history, so that any character that needs to be added to the main list can easily be done by searching page history. Unsuitable for main space, however. As large and long-running a franchise like this is, there's no need for more than one list. Save the detail for Fandom. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per above. Orientls (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of South Park characters: This fork covers content that is already covered in the main list. Outside of the handful of covered characters, the entries here are largely minor and irrelevant. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. This would WP:PRESERVE any content that could be split into a proper article that meets WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A redirect would be infeasible. This list can be linked up in the appropriate section on the main page for South Park characters. Serratra (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Your vote doesn't make any sense. How would redirecting be "infeasible"? Why? I Ask (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why? I Ask, it was just another troll. Drmies (talk) 22:05, 31 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 15:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrities who became politicians[edit]

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

Listcruft, orphan, incomplete. AldezD (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Rescope: There is coverage on celebrities that have become politicians (even Britannica has a little article [44]), so it meets WP:NLIST. However, I don't believe it's really encyclopedic, as such lists are usually clickbaity and not really serious studies or journalism. However, as David J. Jackson notes, "You could write the same book on celebrity in politics as you could write on business in politics" [45], meaning the topic is at least notable. Maybe a WP:TNT is due, but there's nothing too terrible about it now. It's just not good. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining subjective characteristic, plus duplicate article with List of actor-politicians, List of beauty queen-politicians, List of mathematician-politicians, and List of sportsperson-politicians. There are very few politicians who are only celebrity, most celebrity coming from some prior accomplishment. If we get to List of social-media-politicians, we may need this title, but I don't see a rush on that. Every one of the entries on this nominated list qualify for one of these existing lists. BusterD (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Page creator User:Spoonks has been blocked as "not here". BusterD (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Kazamzam (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As duplicative and as the scope is not well-defined. --Enos733 (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and BusterD. Content is duplicative, no need for a separate page on this topic. Sal2100 (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many precedents at CfD and AfD concerning the nebulous term celebrity. Even more vague than dictator or racist, in fact. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Kazamzam (talk) 14:53, 30 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 15:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Smith (politician)[edit]

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

A non-winning candidate for state representative. Does not meet WP:NPOL, and does not appear to pass WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search returned very few mentions, almost all WP:PASSING; the only non-passing mention is this clip and this article, both of which are entirely ~~WP:ROUTINE~~typical local election coverage, which is not sufficient to demonstrate a GNG pass. Curbon7 (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ohio. Curbon7 (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsuccessful political candidate. Mccapra (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Novemberjazz 02:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Candidates of any election are not notable. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:What is and is not routine coverage explains how ROUTINE is not valid here. Djflem (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the word to typical. Point still stands, as such coverage is still considered deficient. Curbon7 (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they didn't win, but the article neither demonstrates that he had preexisting notability for other reasons nor cites anywhere near enough reliable source coverage to make his candidacy markedly more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 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 speedy delete per criterion G7. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super League XXVIII Regular Season Table[edit]

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

I created this page by mistake. There's already a page with this title under template, so it may aswell be deleted L1amw90 14:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under CSD G7 (WP:G7) Meszzy² (talk) 17:01, 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 redirect to Toxicity (album). (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

X (System of a Down song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication that this is a notable song. Not a real single (promo-only), most sources are passing mentions, unreliable, or links to copyright violating footage on Youtube. My redirect to the album was reverted. Fram (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. Fram (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Toxicity (album): Found no additional coverage and what's on the page is as bad as nominator says. QuietHere (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - appears to be a failure of WP:NSONGS. What little is here would be better portrayed in the respective album article (if the sourcing is there, I see a number of unreliable and iffy sources being used too.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toxicity (album) - The song has generated some fan trivia on what the lyrics are about and when it was first played live, but that is not material for a standalone article. Per WP:NSONGS this one has not earned its own notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted due to the use of the "under construction" tag. You should have waited. In any case, it passes WP:SIGCOV. BoxxyBoy (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to identify yourself as the article creator.
Please consider starting articles in the WP:DRAFT space moving forward. Even now, the article is rather incomplete for being published.
What sources are supposed to be providing SIGCOV exactly? Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 8 and 9. Two sources is the minimum for WP:SIGCOV. BoxxyBoy (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Number 8 only mentions the song by name once and is mainly focused on it being an early live performance regardless of what songs they're playing. Number 9 purports to be more focused on the song itself but doesn't actually say anything substantial about it beyond that it appeared on Toxicity. And my understand is most folks look for a three source minimum, although you haven't met one here so it matters not. QuietHere (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much my thoughts as well. Additionally, I'm not sure "Metal Maniacs" is an RS either... Sergecross73 msg me 13:19, 27 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 (WP:SNOW), procedural nomination with unanimous consensus against deletion. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eiyuden Chronicle: Hundred Heroes[edit]

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

There is an ongoing edit war over whether or not to keep this page as an article, or redirect it to another location. The two opposing arguments at hand (as I understand them, judging by the edit summaries of the history) appear to be that 1) the subject is not independently notable as the game is not out, little meaningful information is available in sources, and what is available can be adequately covered in related articles, and 2) that there are numerous other articles about games that have not yet been released (such as Breath of the Wild 2) which are nonetheless retained. I've not been involved in editing this page, and do not personally have any strong opinion as to which is the right course of action here, but it's clear that this is a topic in need of a discussion. As such, per WP:BLAR, I'm taking the initiative and starting one up. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 13:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 13:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Visual arts, and Entertainment. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 13:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not involved either, but @Melodia, Scope creep, Padenton, Haleth, Djungelurban, and Bbb23: are. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Really feels like a failure of WP:BEFORE. This game has getting dedicated third party coverage for years. A game doesn't not need to be released to be notable. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This has gotten on-going coverage in reliable sources ever since 2020, that can easily support a dedicated article. We don't only keep media articles for media that has been published.--Alexandra^IDV 14:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It's notable on multiple levels, both from its legacy as a successor of well known game franchise and also the success of its Kickstarter. Any dismissal of this game's notability reeks of "well, I haven't heard of it so therefore it doesn't matter". Besides, one of the things that an article like this is supposed to cover is the production and when better to cover this than during its production. And even if it somehow were to never come out and get cancelled, I'd argue it would make it even MORE notable as the biggest gaming Kickstarter cancellation of all time. Either way, this game will be, and already is, highly notable. Djungelurban (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others - it's a standalone game and a notable one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Serge and Alexandra—enough coverage to justify an article. Certainly not perfect but it just needs some work, not deletion. Some really poor editing behaviour on show prior to this AfD; "Restore" is not a valid edit summary the first time, let alone the third—especially when blanking a page and even more so when reverting not one but four experienced editors. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 14:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I noticed that too. Some experienced editors I respect made some strange calls on this one. I don't if there's more going on here than I'm aware of or what. Am I missing something? Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. it's so bizzare.....like someone reverted the blanking, did some edits. The article got blanked and redirected again, and then said person changed the redirect to the 'companion' game (which as I said in the edit summery makes NO sense whatsoever, it'd be like if back then someone redirected Final Fantasy XII to Final Fantasy Tactics Advance). Really not sure what people have against this game. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per what's been pointed out above. /Julle (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The idea that it's too soon for an article until the game is released does not follow what has been done for thousands of other games. WP:MOSVG even discusses upcoming games as articles: Category:Upcoming_video_games_scheduled_for_2023, Category:Upcoming_video_games The article could use some work, certainly, but there is a lot of news coverage for the game. The article certainly won't be improved if it keeps getting turned into a redirect. And that it's a single user that's been insisting on this for some reason for over a year is odd. --― Padenton|✉ 16:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. We have a whole category for unreleased games. OceanHok (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (probably a Snow Keep at this point) - Whether or not a game is released yet is pretty irrelevant as far as whether or not an article would be appropriate yet. Its a case by case basis for each one, depending on the level of significant coverage in reliable sources that it has received. And this is a case where it has clearly gotten plenty of coverage to the point that an article would be entirely reasonable. The bizarre argument in the edit history that until something is released having a standalone article on it means "its advertising" kind of boggles my mind. Rorshacma (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm usually pretty cynical about articles for unreleased games, but this one, as it stands, is decently referenced, not particularly PROMO, and there's little doubt that the product's notability will increase when it releases. (ie: It's not just a flurry of press releases that created a sort of fake notability.) If the Kickstarter were still active, I'd be a lot a more sympathetic to the idea that the mere existence of the article was a form of PROMO, but that ended years ago now, so I don't think that argument is valid at all. It's not representative of the reality of how Wikipedia treats upcoming media projects. ApLundell (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ApLundell. I can understand "too soon" for many unreleased games that fail WP:N. But this one passes the threshold for reliable independent coverage. Archrogue (talk) 23:14, 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 speedy keep. Bad faith nomination, editor is CU blocked. Star Mississippi 14:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest palaces[edit]

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

Category-masquerading-as-an-article. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Save a few exceptions, most of these palaces are not even important enough to get mentioned on the page of their respective palace. Thus, there is no reasonable ground on which to expect the presence of significant coverage from which to write encyclopedic prose for this list topic, either, on top of the NOT issue. MarkisMysoe (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Architecture, Lists, France, and United Kingdom. MarkisMysoe (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason for this deletion. This article is well-sourced and " most of these palaces are not even important enough to get mentioned on the page of their respective palace" is clearly completely untrue. A perfectly acceptable list article and obviously not a "category-masquerading-as-an-article". I do find it odd that someone joins Wikipedia and within four days has nominated an article for deletion. I'm sure this is well-intentioned, but it is not a valid nomination for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I also find this a rather odd nomination. It plainly is a list, rather than a category, and a pretty-well sourced and very well illustrated one to boot. And the comment, that most of the "palaces are not even important enough to get mentioned on the page of their respective palace" just doesn't make sense. I can well imagine the question, "What's the world's biggest palace?" being asked, and this article makes a good stab at answering it. Isn't that what we're about? KJP1 (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Necrothesp. Clearly does not fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY and passes WP:SALAT. WJ94 (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is not so that is not a category-masquerding-as-an-article. That is just kidding. MarkisMysoe (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfect valid article, has plenty of referenced content. I'm not seeing any problems here. Dream Focus 12:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a reminder about the dozens of other lists of largest things on WP. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have some suspicions about the merit of this nomination and have filed paperwork. Unfortunately my on wiki time is limited this week and don't want to take admin action directly as I won't be around to follow up promptly. Star Mississippi 13:48, 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 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something About Us (TV series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV. This TV series article has been in unaired status since 2018, and 4+ years has since past with no progress nor further updates. — 🍊 Paper9oll 🍊 (🔔 • 📝) 09:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Korea. — 🍊 Paper9oll 🍊 (🔔 • 📝) 09:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unaired and not passing WP:GNG in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 01:37, 30 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. BD2412 T 01:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Ingushetia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of wars involving Ingushetia

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

An article with false information in the discussion several people including the administrator with extensive experience in the Russian section, expressed the opinion that this is a complete fantasy. The author of the article distorted (interpreted) the historical data at his own discretion, please check the talk page for more info--Товболатов (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or possibly blow up and start again) - the whole topic seems flawed from the start. If we have lists like this that include wars conducted by ancestors, they are going to be long and essentially indescriminate. JMWt (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete majorly flawed article, even if it looks fine from the surface. As the original AfC acceptor, it appeared as if referenced information was reliable, but after reviewing the talk page, it is clear this is a majorly distorted view by the original creator. I don't think re-draftifying is even worth it. Thank you @Товболатов and @Goddard2000 for bringing this up! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the talk page, i point out the inaccuracies of this article and why it should not exist. Goddard2000 (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see a fair target for merging either. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eejit43 I didn't realize that Amjad didn't scite any sources, it's my mistake. There's other sources in this page that are reliable like the Caucasian war Section, so I think the best decision is to remove unreliable sources like Amjad Jaimoukha's book which I already removed. If theres any other sources that aren't reliable, tell me, I will remove them. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to defer to other opinions. This isn't a subject I'm that well educated in. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the whole article should be removed, are we really creating a "list of battles/wars" article on a small republic that is part of the Russian federation? a republic that has not taken part in major wars and who's history was recorded in detail only in the 19th century? I'm not saying this to insult, the same can be said about my nation (Chechens) and any other North Caucasian nation. I mean look at the battles involving Ingush even in this list, 99% are skirmishes and very few can be considered battles or even wars. Is World war 1 & 2 really an "Ingush war" if there were very few soldiers involved and the republic itself had no actual part in it? can World war 2 also be considered a Navajo war because of the Navajo soldiers serving in the US army? was the Vietnam war also a "Navajo war" where the Navajos were defeated by the Vietnamese? Goddard2000 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since when making an article on a small republic was prohibited? I wouldn't have problem if other Caucasian nations made similar lists, there's no issue at all and I actually would like to see them share their history. About 10 thousand Ingushes fought together with Soviet Union against Germany, so it wasn't very few soldiers as you said, considering the fact that Ingushes were in total of hundred thousand. The victory was victory of Soviet Union, not just Ingush victory, besides there were many other ethnicities fighting like the Ukrainians or Kazakhs. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like a source for the 10,000 Ingush fighting for the Soviet Union when the Soviet census in 1939 said there were only 92,000 Ingush in Ingushetia, even so it should not be regarded as an Ingush war since otherwise every single ethnicity in the world would be credited with a victory because almost everyone were part of the Soviet union. Next you're gonna have Chukchi make their own list of wars and include WW1, WW2 etc as Chukchi victories.

No one is saying it's prohibited, i'm saying it's unnecessary since it is aggrandizing a small nation with "battles and wars" that were nothing more than small skirmishes. You have "battles/wars" like the great "Raids of Ingush abreks on the Georgian Military Highway and Mozdok", "Darial Gorge blockade", and "Ingush raids on Russian ambassador armies" as military victories. Why aren't these great victories on the list of wars involving Russia? should you not edit them in that article? according to you here Ingush have 3 military victories against Russia when in reality they were mere skirmishes, especially the "Russian ambassador" who was only known to have been attacked by Ingush tribesmen on his road to Georgia but now this is some war or battle where Ingush defeated Russia?

Not to mention the battles that i have already criticized and have put up for deletion such as the "Nazran conflict" and "Battle of Assa" but these we can discuss in their respective talk pages (like we've already done). Goddard2000 (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Unnecessary since it is aggrandizing a small nation with "battles and wars", It's your personal opinion that this is unnecessary but it shows history of a small nation which is good. You try to find problems too hard when there's not, the issues with unreliable sources I have already solved by removing the sources and the battles. "Should you not edit them in that article?" what a great argument from Goddard2000 I have to say! I didn't put them because: 1. The page was protected. 2. I'm not obligated to put anything there. 3. What is this argument? Other lists involving post-ussr countries include WW2 since they fought in it but no where am I claiming that it's Ingush victory, it's victory of Allies (USSR, USA, UK and others), don't put words into my mouth please. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of these are not "wars" in the usual sense of the word and most did not involve a state known as "Ingushetia". I also agree with most of what Goddard2000 has said, in particular his remark on the Navajos in the Vietnam War. Pichpich (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I explained in the article that the list involves also Durdzuks who are Ingushes (and Chechens) and cited 8 sources for that. By your logic, Lazica and Colchis shouldn't be in List of wars involving Georgia and Kievan Rus shouldn't be in List of wars involving Ukraine because they weren't known as "Georgia" or "Ukraine". Other lists involving post-ussr countries include WW2 since they fought in it but no where am I claiming that it's Ingush victory, it's victory of Allies (USSR, USA, UK and others), so I don't understand why bring up "Navajos in the Vietnam War" analogy. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between other countries in Post SSR was that they were SSR republics that had a big impact on the war, Ingush and Chechens didn't so we can compare them to the Navajos in the US fighting in Vietnam. You should edit in these wars and battles in the "list of wars involving" other countries, go ahead and add the great Ingush victory of "attack on ambassadors" during the 16th century in the Russian list of wars. They need to know their history, i don't think they know how the mighty Ingush defeated them. Goddard2000 (talk) 03:35, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red 76[edit]

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

A collective is an organization/company therefore, fall sunder the purview of WP:NCORP. A sentence in NY Times does not constitute WP:SIGCOV. I'm not locating the type of coverages to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS to be sustained notable. Graywalls (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Companies, and Oregon. Graywalls (talk) 03:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree that WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH are the appropriate guidelines by which to judge artistic endeavors, but even by those stringent criteria this is a clear keep, due to the extensive critical analysis and commentary in this Artforum article and reviews such as this in the Portland Mercury. Other sources are available but those are the best two I have located. The Modern Painters citation in the article may also be significant coverage but I have not found it available online. Jfire (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted additional potential sources on the article talk page. Jfire (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I located the Modern Painters article; it's available via Wikipedia Library: [46]. It is not significant coverage, merely a mention in an article about the Portland art scene circa 2003. Nevertheless, the other sources suffice to establish notability. Jfire (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than discuss your agreement/disagreement, please guide the discussion to which policy/guideline or prior discussion consensus suggest that "art collectives" are not evaluated as organization. Using organization evaluation, local weeklies like the Portland Mercury and Willamette Week are not able to satisfy WP:AUD. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. Some local organizations of importance to the local community aren't guaranteed a placement in the global encyclopedia. Graywalls (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfire:, upon checking with WP:RSN; I've got two inputs from uninvolved editors that Art 21 magazine and especially those before 2013 wouldn't be a WP:RS and they suggested it to be treated as a group blog, meaning that it ought to not be considered for establishing notability. Graywalls (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the conclusion on RSN that pre-2013 content from Art 21 is not RS. However, my keep rationale does not rely on this source in order to demonstrate notability; that's based on the extensive Artforum article and Portland Mercury review. Jfire (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Portland Mercury is hyper-local alternative weekly. When it was doing prints, it was only distributed within Portland, perhaps a smaller areas just outside the city limits as well. Within Portland, it focused on local events. So it has a very narrow audience reach and in evaluating WP:NCORP criteria, such local coverage has relatively little weight. Think of it like high school paper that covers some on-campus affairs or neighborhood newsletter that cover some neighborhood affairs in great details. If the contents covered there have garnered wider coverage, such as in regional or national paper, those papers can be used to augment the better source to support the contents but they're of little use for the purpose of establishing notability. Graywalls (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD expressly does not require that all sources used to establish notability have larger-than-local audience. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability... at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary. That criterion is satisfied by the Artforum profile. Artforum is an international publication, "the art world’s most prominent magazine" as CJR has put it. Virtually any artist or artistic collective profiled in Artforum will have substantial coverage in other sources, and we see that is the case here. (Again, don't take my argument here as accepting the precedent that we should be applying WP:NCORP standards to artistic collectives. I'm accepting that premise in this instance only because I think Red76 passes them anyway.) Jfire (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 10:44, 11 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) 04:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, yes they're covered in the New York Times, I wouldn't call it substantial. I don't find any extensive coverage of them. Delete unless we have at least one extensive source about them, which I don't see. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the Artforum article is extensive. Jfire (talk) 22:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Stadler, Matthew (March 2006). "RED76". Artforum. Vol. 44, no. 7. pp. 95–96. ProQuest 214355536. Archived from the original on 2023-01-22. Retrieved 2023-01-22.
  The article notes: "In Portland, Oregon, two people with no art school training and scant interest in art history, calling themselves Red76, prevailed upon a half-dozen friends to loan them the modest resources needed for a month-long cluster of “art events,” called Ghosttown, 2006. ... Ghosttown is typical of Red76, a self-described “arts group” founded in 2000 with shifting membership that (this time around) included Sam Gould and Khris Soden. Red76 has enabled similar exchanges through projects like Dim Sum, 2002– (a show-and-tell buffet of in-progress artwork served with a sit-down breakfast), Little Cities, 2005– (cut-and-paste parties to make model cities), and Laundry Lectures, 2003– (talks given at Laundromats), both inside and outside art institutions in North America and Europe, including the Drawing Center in New York, Southern Exposure in San Francisco, and the Autonomous Cultural Center in Weimar, Germany."
2. Motley, John (2006-01-12). "Welcome to the Ghosttown: Arts Collective Red76 Throws a Month-Long Citywide Art Project—and You're Invited!". Portland Mercury. Archived from the original on 2023-01-22. Retrieved 2023-01-22.
  The article notes: "Community is a topic that has long preoccupied Red76, which was founded in 2000. Through participatory events that more closely resemble house parties than anything you'd find in a gallery, Red76 has quietly asked big questions without spoiling the fun by being pretentious or pedantic. In 2004, its "New York Public Archive" project, held in New York City's Drawing Center, asked citizens to contribute drawings of what they saw, heard, and felt during that summer. The end result was an impressionistic collection of moments from more than 2,000 New Yorkers. A little more recently and closer to home, Red76 hosted a series of parties, called "Little Cities," in which guests literally made little cities out of cardboard, paint, and hot glue."
3. Williams, Lee (2006-02-05). "Art? Maybe". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2023-01-22. Retrieved 2023-01-22.
  The article notes: "Not Red76. The six-year-old independent Portland art collective says art can be created from everyday events, installed in neighborhood watering holes and toasted, say, with a frosty can of Pabst. And throughout January, Red76 did just that. The group launched its most ambitious project yet, "Ghosttown," a monthlong series of small, often memory-based events that 76's founder Sam Gould would collectively call a "living museum of the everyday." Red76 provided the catalyst for the memories, the framework for new connections and further discussion. The free events occurred at ordinary places around the city --from an outdoor public kitchen behind an art gallery to a smoky, Northeast watering hole."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Red76 to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says:
The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
Artforum meets the "Audience" requirement because it is an international magazine that Columbia Journalism Review called "the art world's most prominent magazine". The Oregonian meets the "Audience" requirement because it is a statewide newspaper and is "the largest newspaper in Oregon and the second largest in the Pacific Northwest by circulation".
Cunard (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on Cunard's sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Cunard has made a convincing argument above that it meets GNG.

QuintinK (talk) 03:54, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fordville, Arizona[edit]

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

I start the year off with another case where the actual sources differ considerably from what we have passed through GNIS to our article. It is yet another late arrival to the topos, which early on show the mining town of Tiger next door, but nothing at this spot, which sits between several mines. When it does show up, it's another back entry from GNIS, but the latter's source (Granger, Byrd H. (1983). Arizona's Names (X Marks the Place). Tucson: The Falconer Publishing Company.) is related in GNIS as saying "Name derived from Ford Mine for which it appears to have served as a post office for a few months in 1880 (AZ-T101)." This is consistent with what I found elsewhere, once I browbeat Google into excluding the place in North Dakota. So not a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Skynxnex (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question. If there's an abandoned mine and a historical settlement around the abandoned mine, is there an article to redirect this to that relates to the mine? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:05, 8 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!} 02:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [47] says the post office was established in 1880, scattered mentions of a senior club etc so it would seem to exist or have existence. Haven't found anything substantive in Google Books yet. Nada on JStor. Per Red-tailed hawk, "Ford Property", and [48] and [49] might be sources. Still looking but right now I got to go. Elinruby (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: based on the sources above, possibly Tiger, Arizona is a legit redirect target? Elinruby (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss potential redirect targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:GEOLAND, given the lack of any WP:RS confirming the subject's existence. I can believe that this mine is notable (Category:Geography of Pinal County, Arizona includes several mines), but we don't seem to have an article on it and there wouldn't be anything useful to merge if we did. Hut 8.5 19:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete I can't find a peep about this one on Arizona Memory. And I found Ford Mine on the 1911 Winkelman topo at the site of "Fordville" with *maybe* one building. I think this one can go and if someone comes along with a great 19th century Arizona Territory mining history sources and wants to resurrect it, the GNIS database will be waiting. jengod (talk) 21:04, 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Activity cycle diagram[edit]

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

The article is solely based on primary material, namely on original ideas published in scientific journals. It is not an encyclopedic article. wp:primary, wp:allprimary. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both the opening sentence and the whole "Developing the activity cycle diagram" section are copyvio. I'm not finding much in the way of secondary sources that employ this term. XOR'easter (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it is copyvio. Also, there are a few articles in scientific journals but no reviews or secondary analysis. So, for delete. Cinadon36 08:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I removed the copyvio. I'm not sure if this is a violation of WP:SYNTH and/or WP:NEO. Bearian (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can find numerous mentions of the term in academically-published books through Google Books, and these are not passing mentions, but explain the purpose and use of these diagrams. I think the topic is notable enough (regardless of the page's current contents). The concept was invented in 1960 by Tocher, later formally defined, and other scholars have analyzed its limitations and tried to expand the concept.[50] One book says "two diagramming methods used in discrete-event simulation are activity cycle diagrams and process maps"[51], so I think whatever this article ends up being, it should be summarized at Discrete-event simulation. DFlhb (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! This comment is already much more useful than the text in the article. Why don´t you give it a shot and edit the article? Then I would support the keep. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are supposed to be assessing the notability of the topic not the quality of the page as it stands. If you are accepting that you would !vote keep based on new sources then you are voting !keep as your support cannot be dependent on cleanup. JMWt (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Based on the sources provided by @DFlhb, I vote to keep the article. I invite DFlhb to clean the article up. If not, I´ll do it. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I already have quite a long to-do list of other articles to improve; feel free to do so! DFlhb (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I introduced your sources and reworked the article a little bit. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:06, 29 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!} 06:40, 16 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!} 06:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nom has withdrawn and says they are now !voting keep. JMWt (talk) 15:43, 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 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) 06:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speak Social[edit]

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP. A brief mention in the Austin American Statesman; other sources are interviews with the founders where they discuss online marketing/social media trends, but no in-depth coverage of the company. KH-1 (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 05:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of ancient China[edit]

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

This article is so hopelessly incomplete that it's probably better just to delete it. Another thing is that the article doesn't give a definite time period for "ancient China". Mucube (talk • contribs) 05:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing time period –

Fixed

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mucube (talk • contribs) 05:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it looks like historical outlines of this nature for different countries are a thing and there are many of them. Here is an outline article for ancient Egypt and one for ancient Rome. There's more on outlines at WP:OUTLINE, and they aren't meant to be articles full of writing. Thus I'm going to say keep - but it looks like it could do with a lead and a little cleaning up down at the bottom. Meszzy² (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing lead –

Fixed

Clean up –

Done

Keep - The argument to delete is that the article is a stub? That's not a valid deletion argument. The standard procedure for stubs is to expand them. Outlines are one of Wikipedia's navigation systems, to help WP's readers see what articles WP has on a subject. The purpose of the Outline of ancient China is to present the topics on this subject that Wikipedia covers, by providing links to the articles in Wikipedia that are about ancient China. Like the rest of the navigation systems, each outline is designed to expand as Wikipedia's coverage of its subject grows — and like all articles on Wikipedia, each outline is also a work-in-progress. So, if any article links are missing, it's because they haven't been added yet. What article links are missing? — The Transhumanist 16:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Transhumanist thanks for fixing the lead and cleanup - cheers Meszzy² (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Meszzy2: You are most welcome. If you have any other suggestions on how to improve the outline, please let me know. — The Transhumanist 07:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – This Outline has existed for seven years plus it is viewed over 1000 times per month, so it is obviously useful and needed. If you feel it has weaknesses, lift it up! Cheers! ((u|WikiWikiWayne)) {Talk} 19:28, 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 merge to I'm from Rolling Stone. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Krystal Ann Simpson[edit]

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

Almost all sources about this person are related to their appearance on a relatively obscure reality television show. Wracking (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Internet. Wracking (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Fashion, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft-deletion as has been previously prod'ed and de-prod'ed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to I'm from Rolling Stone, the parent topic in which the subject is covered, as an alternative to deletion. The sources in the artile do not provide significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) czar 02:42, 30 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Taller[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSINGER, and maybe WP:TOOSOON? I could only find this and this, the latter of which is an "ADVT". There seems to be a WP:COI issue as well (the author's name is "Justinjtaller"). The article is borderline (if not entirely) promotional. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Philippines. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article seems to be likely self-written with a COI. My search for sources turned up nothing other than what the nominator found as well. Thus delete as non-notable. Meszzy² (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also note that the high level of detail about his personal life in the article with no sources seemingly existing for it also points towards the article being a self-write. Meszzy² (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NSINGER per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 13:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing else found with a WP:BEFORE search, only source of a promotional ad piece. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 00:11, 30 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ford and Johnson Chair Company[edit]

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:GNG and has no sources. MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 03:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a version from 2020 had a source and much more content before it was vandalized by an IP vandal. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 05:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Darling, Sharon (1984). Chicago Furniture: Art, Craft, and Industry, 1833–1983. New York: Chicago Historical Society. pp. 114, 115, 116. ISBN 0-393-01818-0. Retrieved 2023-01-23 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "One of the most important agents in the city as well as one of the largest chair manufacturers in the country was John S. Ford, Johnson & Co., whose headquarters and warehouses were in Chicago but whose products were manufactured in Indiana and Massachusetts. Organized in 1872, the firm was jointly operated by Ford & Johnson manufacturers of chairs in Michigan City, Indiana, and Philander Derby who operated one of the nation's largest chair factories in Gardner, Massachusetts. An early conglomerate composed of several partners and representing several factories, J. S. Ford, Johnson & Co. was the outgrowth of a furniture-making business founded in Columbus, Ohio, in 1861 ... During the mid-1880s, J. S. Ford Johnson & Co. offered more than 3,000 varieties of chairs, rockers, and cradles ranging from old-fashioned "Grecian chairs and rockers" to fashionable "folding rustic settees.""
2. Andreas, Alfred T. (1886). History of Chicago: From the Earliest Period to the Present Time. Chicago: The A. T. Andreas Company, Publishers. p. 735. Retrieved 2023-01-23 – via Google Books.
  The book was published in 1886, so the book is in the public domain.
  The book notes: "J. S. Ford, Johnson & Co., manufacturers of chairs, have been in existence as a firm under that title since 1873. The enterprise they represent has numerous branches. The Chicago firm, known by the above name, comprises John S. Ford, Henry W. Johnson, R. A. Hitchcock, and Philander Derby—John S. Ford and R. A. Hitchcock being residents of Chicago, and Mr. Derby of Gardner, Mass. The house was first established in 1861, by Mr. Ford, who began manufacturing chairs alone at Columbus, Ohio. In 1865, the firm of Ford & Johnson was organized, removing to Michigan City, where Reuben A. Hitchcock joined the enterprise, the firm becoming Ford, Johnson & Co. in 1868. In 1873, they removed to Chicago, their location being on Monroe, near Franklin Street, until 1876, when they removed to the corner of Van Buren and Jackson streets, and in 1885 to Nos. 300–306 Wabash Avenue. When the firm came to Chicago, they bought out Stoll & Barnes, and Mr. Derby became a partner, being one of the chief projectors of this great enterprise. Mr. Derby is an extensive manufacturer at Gardner, Massachusetts, and Mr. Johnson operates the factories at Michigan City, Ind., but all the goods of the latter establishments are sold by the Chicago house, while the Eastern and Western houses exchange and sell mutually. The firm sells its goods all over the country, and employs seven regular travelling salesmen and numerous local agents. They manufacture everything in the line of chairs, embracing some three thousand varieties. They do a large business in seating railroad depots, churches, billiard halls and summer resorts. The Chicago establishment employs some eighty men, considerable finishing work on their goods being done in this city. Their factories are located at Michigan City, Ind., where some six hundred workmen are employed."
3. Leonard, John W., ed. (1905). The Book of Chicagoans: A Biographical Dictionary of Leading Living Men of the City of Chicago. Chicago: Marquis Who's Who. p. 211. Retrieved 2023-01-23 – via Google Books.
  The book was published in 1905, so the book is in the public domain.
  The book notes: "Ford, John Sherlock, chair manufacturer; b. Burton, Geauga Co., O., Sept. 16, 183; s. Stephen and Eunice Ford; grad. Burton Acad. at 16; m. September 16, 1856, Sarah M. Starrett, of Columbus, O.; children: Alice M., Reuben A. Began business career on leaving school, as clerk for D. T. Woodbury & Co., wholesale dealers in general merchandise at Columbus, O., with whom remained until 1856; became mem. of firm of Brotherlin, Halm & Co., furniture manufacturers, 1856-63, and, after dissolution of that firm, established, with partner, firm of Ford, Stage & Co., until death of Mr. Stage in 1865, when purchased his partners' interest and continued alone; then organized the business as a stock company and afterward sold it out, retaining the chair dept. In 1867 formed partnership with H. W. Johnson as Ford & Johnson at Columbus, O., and in 1868 firm moved to Michigan City, establishing extensive factory there, as Ford, Johnson & Co. In 1872 established the Chicago house of J. S. Ford, Johnson & Co., manufacturers of chairs and settees; in June 1900, the Michigan City factories and Chicago business were placed in a corporation under style of J.S. Ford, Johnson & Co., of which is now pres. Pres. Western Cane Seating Co., of Michigan City, Ind. Pres. Nat. Chair Manufacturers' Assn.; pres. Chicago Furniture Manufacturers' Assn. Promoted Western Chair Assn., of which was pres. for many years. Presbyterian. Dir. Chicago Relief and Aid Soc. over 15 years. Republican. Mem. I. O. O. F. Office: 16th St. and Indiana Av. Residence: 3906 Lake Av."
4. Scranton, Philip (1997). Endless Novelty: Specialty Production and American Industrialization, 1865–1925. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. pp. 172–173. ISBN 978-0-691-07018-6. Retrieved 2023-01-23 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Ford, Johnson alone offered "3,000 varieties of chairs, rockers, and cradles" in the mid-1880s in various combinations of carving, veneers, or seat forms. ... When Ford, Johnson, scored a Columbian Exposition contract for 54,000 chairs, tight delivery dates and the array of work in progress at its own shops forced the firm to subcontract much of the order to local and Wisconsin makers."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ford and Johnson Chair Company to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 02:09, 23 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!} 02:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable historical furniture manufacturer. jengod (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Cunard has improved the page since the deletion nomination, and added in multiple reliable sources. Meszzy² (talk) 03:34, 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. Although not unanimous, consensus is that there are sufficient independent sources of sufficient significant coverage that WP:GNG is met. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15.ai[edit]

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

This is an anonymous creator's unfinished project at a dead website, where they collected all of the My Little Pony videos and ran them through open source voice cloning software. Their grandiose view of their own project doesn't mean that it's notable. This article is 49% original research, and 49% content that needs to be moved to the Audio_deepfake article, since it's so generalized. I'm very impressed at boundless energy this particular group of editors has towards curating this article, considering the topic. It ultimately doesn't belong on Wikipedia though. Habanero-tan (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than the IGN article and the Arxiv pre-prints, the rest aren't reliable as sources. I don't find any RS discussions we could use. Oaktree b (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extremely important as it's one example of the first TTS voice generators and neural networks. I do not see why this is considered for deletion and it's currently under maintenance. There is also plenty of high quality citations. (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodclotboy12 (talk • contribs) [reply]
"one example of the first TTS voice generators and neural networks"

That is an extremely false claim, and I am sorry if this Patreon project mislead you into donating based on that. The 15.ai project was begun in 2020 as a labeled training set of My Little Pony clips. The project uses publically available TTS & neural network software. For the actual history of neural network TTS, which 15.ai has nothing to do with, see:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WaveNet#History

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_synthesis#History

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_network#History

Habanero-tan (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I have to assume you are doing this out of malice. You are, once again, regurgitating the same falsehood that others have called you out for: The project uses publically available TTS & neural network software, when this is clearly not the case, and are now actively trying to (and I don't use this term lightly) lie your way through this. Could an admin please do something about this? This is extremely concerning. Tacotron2 (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Websites. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, how the hell did this become a GA? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 13:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, however isn't this more of a "Comment", rather than a reason for deletion?

Could you please elaborate as to why you believe this article should be deleted. 2A00:23C4:6696:4801:8CDB:BA79:1349:F217 (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although context from this article could probably make more general adjacent articles (such as Deepfake) into a GA article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. As one of the primary editors of the article in the past (now mostly inactive due to real-life things), the article from several months ago was most certainly up to GA standards. However, this article has constantly been plagued by anonymous editors and new users making unsubstantiated edits ever since the article was first created. I have since reverted the article back to what it was back in November. As for notability, the subjects absolutely meets the requisite standards, and as pointed above, was extremely crucial in the development of TTS voice generation. I apologize for being inactive as an editor for so long, but I did not expect the level of vandalism to reach this high, causing concern for the legitimacy of this article. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- I have since requested a higher level of protection for the article. The last request was accepted and lasted for a month, but it appears that this was not nearly strong enough. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The guy who runs the site goes on hiatus like every other month for improvements, this isn't anything new. Page was still up the last time it went under maintenance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AveTrueToCaesar (talk • contribs) 20:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, articles like NovelAI and character.ai, which have far fewer reliable sources, are allowed to stay but somehow THIS gets nominated for deletion? Seriously? 63.139.68.87 (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The OP's claims are so replete with falsehoods and misinformation that it suggests to me that this AfD nomination was not made in good faith. The first two sentences are completely wrong—the project is not "unfinished" but rather constantly improving, the website is not "dead," the creator did not collect "My Little Pony videos," the voice cloning software is not "open source"—that I suspect that this was done fully on purpose. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears that the article has become somewhat bloated with both marginal content and marginal sources, and could do with a good spring cleaning. However, basic notability is not in question - these four mainstream game magazine articles [52][53][54][55] already form a sufficient backbone for that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Speedy keep, subject meets WP:GNG per Elmidae above. Tacotron2 (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd like to point out: 1. almost everything stated in the OP is incorrect and the website isn't dead, as it's currently under maintenance (only for three months, mind you - hardly considered "dead"); and 2. WP:DEGRADE. This project's possibly the single most widely recognizable modern TTS project on the Internet (yes, even more recognizable than my namesake), and taking into consideration the inordinately numerous IP edit problem this article has always had, it's rash and unreasonable to judge the notability and quality of an article from these overzealous editors. I was most active in contributing to this article back in June of last year, so while I'm disappointed and rather annoyed by the sheer number of gung-ho editors who have no standards for quality control making all of these unsolicited edits, let me assure you that the article definitely did (and still does) exceed the notability and quality standards of Wikipedia. There are numerous secondary sources from reliable outlets like Game Informer, Polygon, IGN, and Kotaku, which are all listed under WP:RS.

>This is an anonymous creator's unfinished project at a dead website, where they collected all of the My Little Pony videos and ran them through open source voice cloning software. Their grandiose view of their own project doesn't mean that it's notable.

That's a very gross misrepresentation of just how significant the project was in the history of TTS research and I would advise editors to not take what is written in the OP at face value. I'm disappointed not only because such a blatant misrepresentation is being used to justify the deletion of this article, but also because some editors seem to have bought into OP's misleading and objectively false statements without checking them. Tacotron2 (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that WP:SK was an option when I made the above post, so I've upgraded my recommendation to that now (for the reasons listed in #1 and #3 of WP:SK). Sorry, I'm new to this. Tacotron2 (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"how significant the project was in the history of TTS research"

I see the My Little Pony fandom is now glomming onto this AFD, after the initial string of Deletes. First of all, welcome. Regarding your core claim - since 15.ai is ultimately an Audio deepfake implementation (or as you're calling it, TTS, even though that's a much older technology) - why do 0 of the 52 references at Audio deepfake make any mention at all of 15.ai? Seems odd. I hope non-biased editors can judge for themselves which side of this discussion is doing the lying. But, most likely the only new comments here from here out will be from the MLP Fandom, as the string of Deletes came from folks visiting via the daily AFD log. I have nothing against My Little Pony or this deepfake dubbing project, I only take issue with articles full of false claims, original research, and unrelated citations that belong in a different article. Habanero-tan (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that I or any of the other commenters are from the My Little Pony fandom? (I'm not.) If you check my previous edits, it should've been obvious that I'm an actual deep learning engineer, as the vast majority of my edits are of deep learning articles (not to mention my username) and the only tangentially MLP-related article in my edit history is this very one (and I only contributed to the technical side of the article, not the fandom side of the article). It's extremely disingenuous of you to try and blame this backlash on brigading when 1. there is no evidence of such brigading happening at all (and the burden of proof is on you), and 2. your initial nomination was full of falsehoods that you still haven't acknowledged and are trying to brush under the carpet.

For example, as pointed out above: Why would you claim that the project is dead? Why would you claim that the project was run through open source cloning software? Why would you claim that the creator collected all of the My Little Pony videos, and why would you insinuate that the MLP aspect of the project is most paramount compared to the actual technology behind the project?

The reason I will continue supporting a speedy keep is due to WP:EARLY: The fifth bullet point states, Nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question., which to me is obviously the case from the falsehoods mentioned above. The fact that you seem to be ignoring editors calling you out and instead are blaming these grievances on an entire fandom is truly telling. Tacotron2 (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm new to the AfD process, but the OP's accusation of brigading does not sit well with me. Could an admin clarify whether this is allowed or not? Tacotron2 (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

>or as you're calling it, TTS, even though that's a much older technology

As an ML engineer, I cannot even begin to explain how incorrect you are. Look up any "audio deepfake" implementation paper/repo, and I guarantee that you will see the term TTS being used in the title or description. I mean no offense, but claiming something like this shows just how blatantly ignorant you are of this topic. Here are three examples off the top of my head:

Tacotron2: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.05884.pdf

Glow-TTS: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.11129.pdf

Transformer-TTS: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1809.08895.pdf Tacotron2 (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. TTS stands for Text to Speech. It just means speech synthesis. It's not a specific implementation or technique. If you read the comment being directly replied to, it calls 15.ai "the first TTS". TTS is much older than that. Habanero-tan (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world are you talking about? You need to re-read the comment you directly replied to, because I never stated anything of the sort. I'm using the term "TTS" as it's commonly used in the field of ML-based TTS research. You were the one who claimed that 15.ai is not a TTS, when it by definition is. Tacotron2 (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't purposely strawman the wrong semantic sense into other folks comments, it only wastes time and energy. We both know what Bloodclotboy12 meant when they stated 15.ai is "one example of the first TTS". We both also know what the actual historical first TTS technologies were. Let's steelman and assume WP:GOODFAITH instead, and move back to the focus of improving Wikipedia. Habanero-tan (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I'd like to assume good faith on your end, it's exceedingly difficult for me to do so when you're still dodging the questions asked above. Could you explain how you came to the conclusion that 15.ai uses "open source voice cloning software"? Tacotron2 (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Going to draw a line here, y'all. Saying the nominator is wrong is allowed. Arguing with passion that the nominator is wrong is allowed (although maybe not always the best idea). But personal attacks are not allowed, and further ones, by anyone, will be met with blocks from editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she\|they\|xe) 23:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Strong Keep and ban Habanero-tan Every single claim this user has made about the project is blatantly false, and it's equally obvious that nominating it for deletion was an act of malice. Kyle horse (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] This AFD was submitted out of a love for Wikipedia. I have zero malice towards the My Little Pony fandom. What I don't like is seeing articles made up entirely of WP:OR, WP:REL, & WP:RS violations. Full disclosure I have been working full time as a Deep Learning researcher since 2018, which includes TTS deepfakes, which is why I took such an astounded interest in this article's many unproven claims of significance. Habanero-tan (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] Yeah you're very obviously just concern trolling. You have offered no proof for your claims, and you can't because you made them up. Get a life mate 2A02:A442:581E:1:7004:8562:4C6D:34B5 (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Going to draw a line here, y'all. Saying the nominator is wrong is allowed. Arguing with passion that the nominator is wrong is allowed (although maybe not always the best idea). But personal attacks are not allowed, and further ones, by anyone, will be met with blocks from editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Strong Keep and ban Habanero-tan Every single claim this user has made about the project is blatantly false, and it's equally obvious that nominating it for deletion was an act of malice. Kyle horse (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD was submitted out of a love for Wikipedia. I have zero malice towards the My Little Pony fandom. What I don't like is seeing articles made up entirely of WP:OR, WP:REL, & WP:RS violations. Full disclosure I have been working full time as a Deep Learning researcher since 2018, which includes TTS deepfakes, which is why I took such an astounded interest in this article's many unproven claims of significance. Habanero-tan (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you're very obviously just concern trolling. You have offered no proof for your claims, and you can't because you made them up. Get a life mate 2A02:A442:581E:1:7004:8562:4C6D:34B5 (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Elmidae. Evidently meets GNG. SirGallantThe4th (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get opinions on the state of the article after an editor's revert to the condition the page was in when it was designated a GA. I see there is room for improvement (and, at the least, protection) of this article but I'm very reluctant to delete an article that is a current GA. Just a note that those advocating Keep should cease attacking editors who see problems with this article. This is all part of the process of AFD when we consider how to handle articles that are seen as problematic. There is nothing nefarious going on, remember to have good faith towards other editors even when you disagree.

Just a reminder that a closer can close this whenever they deem there is a consensus. I just wanted to see if those advocating Delete had a change of mind with the revert of the article back to before vandalism occurred.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards Delete. I 've read the article, quite interesting. But I failed to see RS dedicated on the topic of the article. May I ask, can anyone point to 3 solid RS (tweets, youtube, tiktok, about.com and most sources of the current version are not) that discuss 15.ai in depth? Thanks Cinadon36 08:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the current version of the article:

Game Informer: [56], PCGamer: [57], Kotaku: [58], Eurogamer: [59], Rock, Paper, Shotgun: [60]
Game Informer is listed under WP:RSPSOURCES as a reliable source, and searching through the others in the noticeboard archives shows that these outlets have been used as reliable sources numerous times in the past, e.g. ([61], [62], [63], [64]). Tacotron2 (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just came across WP:VG/RS, which lists Game Informer, PC Gamer, Kotaku, Eurogamer, and Rock Paper Shotgun all as solidly reliable sources. Tacotron2 (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. May I pose a couple of concerns more?
All of the articles cited are from January 21 (from 17th to 19th). Wikipedia:Notability requires that the attention by the world should be spread over a period of time.

Those articles are not an in depth presentation of 15.ai. They are pretty short and are sounding like "hey, look this weird app" Cinadon36 10:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you may have misread the dates -- the Eurogamer article was published on 2022 January 17, which was a year after the others. 15.ai most recently came under attention in early 2022 due to the Troy Baker NFT incident, which occurred over a year after 15.ai gained popularity in early 2021, so the subject isn't simply one of short-term interest.

As far as I'm aware, conciseness doesn't detract from these sources as having significant coverage (and in my humble opinion, the articles do a fine job of summarizing the important parts of 15.ai). The page for WP:Notability states that the sources should have significant coverage, be reliable, provide objective evidence of notability, and be independent of the subject, all of which seem to apply to the sources listed here. Tacotron2 (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To give some more context, at the time of those initial articles in early 2021, no one had a clue where 15.ai had come from, as very little was actually known about the developer themselves. The website gave very little information about how the tool worked and there was no contact information, so it makes sense that those articles weren't able to talk much about the creator of the tool itself or how the TTS worked behind the scenes, but rather focused on the content created by the tool. Hope this clears things up, thank you. Tacotron2 (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but. Article of Eurogamer was a year later, but the main issue was not 15.ai. Look, I understand this is borderline. They coverage is limited. For some, that s enough though. For me, it is a weak delete. Cinadon36 20:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elmidae and Tacotron2. Notability isn’t under question due to sources posted above that sufficiently meet WP:RS so I’m surprised to see discussion still going on about that. It’s one thing to scrutinize the quality of the article before or after the vandalism but to my knowledge that isn’t grounds for deletion. Full disclosure, I might be biased because I have heard of 15.ai before and only just found this AfD from the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axiomofyourchoosing (talk • contribs) 11:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It's not 'extremely important'; but it seems well sourced enough for a non-contentious article. JeffUK 16:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with the same points HackerKnownAs made above. 15.ai is constantly updated. While it is down currently, that isn't an uncommon state for the site to be in, and shouldn't be considered reason for deletion. Similar web projects are not available online, yet that does not discount their notability for an article. 15.ai is influential in fandom and AI culture, with coverage of itself and of creations made using it. —Frosty Beep 19:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I already voted Strong Keep above, but would like to expound on my vote as I continue to clean up the article). There are at least four unchallenged sources from reliable organizations, plus a few others I have found on the article that contribute toward a solid GNG. The following is a summary of these sources:

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:HackerKnownAs
[[65]]	Game Informer is listed under WP:VG/RS	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
[[66]]	PCGamer is listed under WP:VG/RS	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
[[67]]	Kotaku is listed under WP:VG/RS	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
[[68]]	Rock, Paper, Shotgun is listed under WP:VG/RS	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
[[69]]	Eurogamer is listed under WP:VG/RS	~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail	~ Partial
[[70]]	~ While Yahoo! News is listed under WP:RSPSS, Yahoo! Finance is possibly less reliable; leaving as uncertain	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	~ Partial
[[71]]	Generally considered reliable; see [[72]]	~ The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer much detail	~ Partial
[[73]]	~~Source is in Japanese; unclear whether the source (DenFamiNicoGamer) is reliable~~ Appears to be reliable, as the website has its own editorial board, has been used unchallenged in other GA articles, and has been the source of exclusive interviews of celebrities and leaders in the gaming industry (see [74])	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
[[75]]	~~Source is in Japanese; unclear whether the source (Automaton Media) is reliable~~ Appears to be reliable, as the website has its own editorial board, has been used unchallenged in other GA articles, and has been the source of exclusive interviews of celebrities and leaders in the gaming industry (see [76])	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
[[77]]	? Although LaPS4 has an article under the Spanish Wikipedia, unclear whether the source is reliable	The source discusses the subject directly and in detail	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

In addition, I have made a request that the article be placed under extended-confirmed protection, which has been accepted as of yesterday. Hopefully, this will keep some of the persistent disruptive editing at bay. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the table is quite impressive. But I am not sure that the sources discusses the subject in detail. For example, Game Informer's article is of 334 words (counted by https://wordcounter.net/). 'Rock paper shotgun is at 340 words. Kotaku is 216. PC Gamer at 362 words. So I am not very confided that is significant coverage. Cinadon36 20:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply; however, I must disagree with your assessment. According to WP:WHATSIGCOV and WP:100W, "sources with at least 100 words of coverage of a topic generally count" as part of significant coverage, a condition that all of the articles above satisfy. In addition, the definition of "significant coverage" as stated in WP:GNG has no mention of a minimum word count, and only stipulates that the sources must "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." —HackerKnownAs (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 100 words bar is derived from an essay (Wikipedia:One hundred words), it is not a wp consensus. When reading those articles, nowhere did I felt I was reading a detailed account of 15.ai. Cinadon36 06:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Cinadon36 06:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And similarly, that the 100 words guideline is derived from an essay does not mean that it is precluded from being a Wikipedia consensus; I don't see anywhere in the Wikipedia documentation that stipulates that sources with ~300 words are exempt from being meeting WP:SIGCOV, and I would consider that limit to be just as arbitrary as the 100 words limit in WP:100W. I regarded the articles as more than adequately meeting significant coverage of the subject, and I'm sure that many other editors would regard them as such as well. Your standards for what meets significant coverage might just be stricter than most, and that is completely fine—I simply disagree that an article must meet a minimum length in order for its subject to be considered noteworthy. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the polite discussion. Even though we disagree, I really liked the way you present your arguments and the table above. Cinadon36 14:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's no problem at all. Thank you for the civil discussion as well. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the table to include Japanese and Spanish sources, although it's still unclear to me whether these sources are reliable or not. Could someone who understands Japanese or Spanish chime in on the discussion? Thank you. —HackerKnownAs (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per table above, subject meets GNG. Also, shouldn’t an admin have closed this by now? It’s been well over a week since the AfD was created. Throwaway1112 (talk) 19:36, 27 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 WP:A11 (non-admin closure) BangJan1999 14:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwism[edit]

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

new "religion", potential hoax, nothing found in a Gsearch, other than a mixed-media painting with this name Oaktree b (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: appears to be a religion dedicated to worshiping... Kiwi fruits? anyways no reliable sources found with a quick search, I don't think there would be any. Justi yaya 02:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Followers actually appear to worship a frog called "lord Kiwi" and its 12 disciples. :) Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 02:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:G3 Clearly a hoax. Google and Internet Archive give nothing. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:11, 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 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!} 00:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieu Wilson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and New Zealand. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO, and WP:SPORTSPERSON. Searched and cannot find significant reliable coverage. --RealPharmer3 (talk) 12:02, 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 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.

If you, yourself, actually want to work on a draft version, you can ask for this article to be restored. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aadnya Borkar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, besides one source [78], the subject fails WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Oman, and India. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no evidence of notability, unfortunately. Almeida Fernando (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I tried searching outside of the article listed cite to see if I could help to vote and keep but unfortunately I wasn't able to see except this [79] which I can't really guarantee it credibility but only considering the article for draft because it a good prospects.Epcc12345 (talk) 23:11, 29 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!} 00:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maharlika International School[edit]

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

Lacking significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable results from Google News and Google Books. Google search provided only listings and the school's blogspot website. --Lenticel ^(talk) 13:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:33, 28 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Religiosity[edit]

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

This blatant WP:SYNTH. The lead is a WP:DICTDEF, while the statistics scattered throughout the article do not have any clear or meaningful connection and could easily be fit anywhere else on Wikipedia. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although it is true the article needs serious work that is not a basis for deletion and the topic of religiosity, its characteristics/definitions is notable. EvilxFish (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My original concerns had stemmed from the assumption that "religiosity" was too vague a topic to warrant an encyclopedia page. However, I suppose it could work if done right. I'm thinking about closing this. An anonymous username, not my real name 16:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a good article in its current state but I don't see that there's much scope to contest that the subject is notable (the current references listed are sufficient to establish that). Hmee2 (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous sources are there already on the topic. I think that this article can improve but it does show what factors play a role when scholars gauge that people are religious or not. Plus it is used in things like psychology [80].Ramos1990 (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into "religion". It may be regarded as a WP:CFORK; Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. "Religiosity" is a substantivisation of "religious", which in turn is an adjective meaning one who believes/belongs/practises a "religion"; therefore the concept can find a place within the article about "religion". The corresponding articles in other languages are probably translations of the English one.--Æo (talk) 16:55, 22 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!} 00:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet GNG as a stand alone topic. Serratra (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely needs a rewrite but this is notable as the sociological study of religious adherence and religious disposition. A merge to religion would not be appropriate, since religion is a very broad article about the phenomenon of religion as a whole; this is is much more specifically about studying the human tendency towards religious beliefs/practices. If you want to call it a WP:CFORK then it is a legitimate one, and there is nothing wrong with a massive topic like religion (which is the subject of an entire academic discipline) having subsidiary articles about specific approaches to its study. On the question of notability, there are clearly sufficient sources to show that this meets the WP:GNG; plenty in the article, and the first page of Google Scholar results has the following: [81], [82], [83], [84]; there will almost certainly be more. WJ94 (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Agree with everything WJ94 has said. But yes, the article does need some work. Gazelle55 ^{Let's talk!} 09:17, 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 withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Shoerack (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edmon L. Gallagher[edit]

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

~~I don’t believe this subject passes WP:NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)~~ striking this as I am withdrawing[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and Alabama. Mccapra (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A relatively cursory search returned a number of academic reviews for his works, suggesting a possible WP:NAUTHOR pass. Hebrew Scripture in Patristic Biblical Theory: [85][86]; The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: [87][88]. Curbon7 (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see one review of one of his works on jstor and another on academia edu. I agree more reviews would make him an author pass. Mccapra (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another review of The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Not much published, but what there is appears to be by serious academic publishers. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the scholarly reviews of his publications identified above that show a pass of criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR. Also worldcat shows his main works have many editions (21 and 14) and many library holdings which also hints at a pass of criteria 3, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination thanks everyone. Mccapra (talk) 23:43, 27 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.