< March 21	March 23 >

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Karen Simpson Nikakis[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Only 1 article links to this being List of Australian novelists. The statement "the National Library of Australia describing her first book as heralding "the arrival of an exciting new talent on the Australian fantasy landscape" is not actually in the given citation. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Australia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. The full text of https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4300074 includes the disputed phrase, but perhaps the text is taken from another source such as a submission by the book's publisher. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The nomination for the Australian Shadows Awards plus the two nominations for the Aurealis Awards give her a WP:ANYBIO pass on crition 1. The three reviews of The Whisper of Leaves arguably give her a WP:AUTHOR pass on criterion 3. The second one is up for debate, not everyone interprets it the same as me, I'd say more, if the ANYBIO pass wasn't so clear. CT55555(talk) 03:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Passes NAUTHOR and ANYBIO per above. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was (non-admin closure) Speedy delete G11. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Munkhbayan[edit]

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

Claims of popularity enough to escape WP:A7. Clear promotional intent but the language isn't promotional enough for WP:G11. Should, however, be deleted for failing WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Zero WP:RS coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, China, and Mongolia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CVR Partners[edit]

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

This reads like an advertisement Ebbedlila (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. None of the sources show any in-depth coverage to suggest notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is a stub, not an advertisement. It could definitely use improving. AQBachler (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete this text of utter insignificance, or, at least, send an advertisement bill to the outfit. -The Gnome (talk) 08:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) LibStar (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cleveland Street, Sydney[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOROAD. Out of the 3 sources, 1 is google maps and the 2nd is just a site for traffic volumes. LibStar (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fresh content and sources dded regarding naming and history, as well as the most significant educational development located adjacent to the street. Rangasyd (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep* This is clearly not just any old street; looking at the buildings on it it has been a major urban thoroughfare for a very long time. The article has been improved a bit and the references are now much more solid. I am also pretty sure the article could be profitably expanded. (I live on the other side of the planet so its unliely I could do much myself )TheLongTone (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Lawrence Paynter[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, China, Laos, Mongolia, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom. Ping me if sources with extensive coverage are found. Article is currently unsourced. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Unsourced BLP. Fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed nothing, BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. // Timothy :: talk 18:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) LibStar (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Howard Balloch[edit]

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

Unreferenced stub for 15 years. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, China, Korea, and Mongolia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
1. Wells, Paul (2014-05-09). "The best book you've never heard of: Paul Wells on the obscure memoir that's a must-read for any politician". Maclean's. Archived from the original on 2023-03-23. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
  The article notes: "It is customary to describe political books as “hotly awaited.” Balloch’s isn’t. His long career as a bureaucrat and diplomat concluded with a stint as Canada’s ambassador to China until 2001. He stayed in China for a successful business career, where he remains to this day. I can find nobody who knew he’d self-published a memoir. ... Balloch gets the coveted national-unity gig almost by accident. He’s an assistant deputy minister for the Asia-Pacific who briefs Chrétien before the APEC summit in Seattle at the end of 1993. Chrétien notices his elegant French. Three months later, Balloch is called into the Langevin Block office of Chrétien’s formidable chief of staff, Jean Pelletier. Pelletier hands him a job Balloch did not know existed."
2. Qi, Xiao (2009-09-10). "Buying a slice of 'China story'". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2023-03-23. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
  The article notes: "Howard Balloch, founder and president of his eponymous The Balloch Group (TBG), is former Canadian Ambassador to China. ... Balloch hit the headlines in Canada when he set up TBG, an advisory and merchant banking firm, in Beijing in 2001 after his ambassadorial tenure in China ended. Some lauded his courage, and some called him "nuts". ... Balloch's fascination with China originated in the photographs and paintings left by his tea-trading grandfather who lived in Fuzhou, capital of East China's Fujian province, for more than 20 years in the late 19th century."
3. "Chairman Mao did good things in China: Ex-Canadian ambassador". Toronto Sun. 2020-03-10. Archived from the original on 2023-03-23. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
  The article notes: "Chairman Mao achieved some “great things.” So says Howard Balloch, a former Canadian ambassador to China from 1996 to 2001, who praised Mao Zedong during his testimony to the Commons Special Committee on Canada-China Relations, according to Blacklock’s Reporter. Balloch, who left his post to become a Hong Kong investment banker, claimed personal freedom in the People’s Republic has been on the upswing for decades."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Greenspon, Edward; Wilson-Smith, Anthony (1996). Double Vision: The Inside Story of the Liberals in Power. Toronto: Doubleday Canada. p. 180. ISBN 0-385-25613-2. Retrieved 2023-03-23 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "Chrétien created a strategic planning unit to advise him on the referendum, with a bright but strutting foreign service officer named Howard Balloch heading it up. He had first encountered Balloch as an advocate of closer relations with China in preparing for the November 1993 Seattle summit. To some, it was a measure of Chrétien's cockiness that he would put a bureaucrat with little domestic experience, a Newfoundlander at that, in charge of his national unity squad. ... The Balloch group also suffered from an uncertain chain of command in relation to both the Prime Minister's Office and Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Marcel Massé. Balloch would never become a big player; in Montreal, where the real referendum planning would take place, he was unknown and therefore untrusted."
  2. "Passage". Asiaweek. Vol. 22, no. 9. March 1996. p. 16. EBSCOhost 9603291042. Archived from the original on 2023-03-23. Retrieved 2023-03-23 – via CNN.
    The article notes: "Howard Balloch, a Canadian career diplomat; as Canada's new ambassador to China; announced by Canadian Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy in Ottawa Feb. 15. Balloch succeeds John Paynter who died Oct. 31."
  3. Howitt, Chuck (2006-05-02). "Tackling the Chinese myth - Don't make assumptions about doing business with the Asian giant, local businesses warned". Waterloo Region Record. Archived from the original on 2023-03-23. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
    The article notes: "Balloch clearly knows what he's talking about. Not only did he manage three prime ministerial trade missions to China while serving as ambassador from 1996 to 2001, he also served as president of the China Canada Business Council. He now runs his own investment firm called the Balloch Group, which assists companies hoping to do business with the Asian giant."
  4. Cohn, Martin Regg (2001-03-05). "International language of hockey links nations". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2023-03-23. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
    The article notes: "The delicate negotiations culminated this month with a visit by Canada's new ambassador to Pyongyang, Howard Balloch, asking to see this capital's hockey arena, known formally as The Ice Rink. Balloch dropped the puck for the opening faceoff in a match pitting the Women's National Team against a group of younger male players, watched by a clutch of Canadian envoys."
  5. "Unity adviser envoy to China". Toronto Star. 1996-02-16. EBSCOhost 6FPTS199602164146290.
    The article notes: "The man who headed the federal unity advisory operation during the Quebec referendum is going to China as ambassador. Howard Balloch ran a unity war room of about 70 bureaucrats during the referendum. The secretive unity office kept Prime Minister Jean Chretien briefed on every development. The former assistant deputy minister of Asian and Pacific affairs has served abroad in Jakarta and Prague. In Ottawa, Balloch has held several senior postings at Foreign Affairs as well as serving as deputy secretary for intergovernmental affairs in the Privy Council Office."
  6. Lewis, James (Summer 2005). "Time to Travel". Canadian Investment Review. Vol. 18, no. 2. p. G1. EBSCOhost 18429877.
    The article notes: "As always, China continues to be a hot topic in global investing. Howard Balloch, president of the Balloch Group and the Canada China Business Council, as well as former Canadian ambassador to China, delivered an informed and intimate glimpse of the Middle Kingdom in his key note speech."
  7. Deagon, Brian (2013-02-14). "China Transition A Big Opportunity For U.S. Companies". Investor's Business Daily. EBSCOhost 85507048. Archived from the original on 2023-03-23. Retrieved 2023-03-23.
    The article notes: "Howard Balloch has lived in China for the past 17 years. After serving as Canada's ambassador to China for five years, he founded Balloch Group in 2001, a consulting firm specializing in China and other Asian markets. The company was acquired by investment firm Canaccord Genuity in 2010, and Balloch became chairman of its Asia operation."
  8. Cohn, Martin Regg (2001-02-28). "Canada ends 50-year chill with N. Korea". Toronto Star. EBSCOhost 200102281036317.
    The article notes: "A half-century of hostility comes to an end today as Canada's newly-appointed ambassador to North Korea inaugurates diplomatic relations with the world's most isolated nation. Howard Balloch stepped off an aging, Russian-built Air Koryo Ilyushin 62 at Pyongyang's desolate airport yesterday, after a short flight from his base in Beijing where he will continue as Canada's ambassador to China. The Canadian delegation was whisked along wide boulevards bereft of cars, while work gangs along the route stared at the passing convoy. Balloch was scheduled to formally present his credentials to Kim Yong-nam, president of the Supreme People's Assembly. For protocol reasons, Korea's paramount ruler, Kim Jong-il, does not normally receive ambassadors personally, though a visit with Balloch has not been ruled out."
  9. Paddon, David (2010-11-23). "Canaccord enters China's investment banking arena with purchase of Balloch Group". The Canadian Press. EBSCOhost d9b4ea7a111f46c4a03811203712e1bb.
    The article notes: "Canaccord Financial Inc. (TSX:CF) is expanding its global capital arm into the world's most populous country through the acquisition of The Balloch Group, a small investment bank formed by a former Canadian ambassador to China. Through Balloch, which will be renamed Canaccord Genuity Asia, the Canadian firm will advise Chinese clients expanding abroad and foreign clients seeking to enter China — and facilitate Chinese financing on international projects. Howard Balloch, Canada's ambassador to China from 1996 to 2001, will remain with the company he founded in 2001 and become chairman of Canaccord Genuity Asia. He'll also be appointed a director of Canaccord Financial."
  10. DiManno, Rosie (2001-11-13). "Our man in Beijing isn't shy about touting Toronto's case". Toronto Star. EBSCOhost 200107131100802.
    The article notes: "In the belly of the beast, Ambassador Howard Balloch proudly flies the Toronto Olympic flag. He's run it up the pole at the Canadian embassy here, just below the Maple Leaf. It's a cheeky declaration of his unapologetic - indeed, flagrantly undiplomatic - bias, and his hopes for Toronto's Olympic aspirations. Balloch is not exactly sleeping with the enemy. But he's certainly bunking down in a guest bedroom, which is Canada's huge diplomatic mission in Beijing. Yet amid the frenzy of a metropolis gaga with anxiety over today's bestowal of the 2008 Summer Games and surrounded by 12 million patriotic Beijingers, the ambassador is not shy about showing the colours."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Howard Balloch to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - following Cunard's expansion, this does look to meet GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PESC Information Systems College[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. I don't see any refs that show it is notable JMWt (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Ethiopia. JMWt (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 21:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete no sources to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Beano. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Malcolm Judge[edit]

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

Rejected PROD; originally nominated for deletion because of being almost entirely unsourced in spite of being years old. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to The Beano. There's some sources stuck in books that aren't accessible online that might be helpful here. I found a passing mention of Judge in The Independent (not clipping out of laziness but happy to upon request) in 2011 that talks about his creation of the Numskulls, a comic inside of The Beano. Another brief mention of his creation of the Numskulls is in the Hollywood Reporter ([1]). Judging by other sources I've found and our own page on Billy Whizz, it's clear that Judge is discussed in much more detail in The History of the Beano, but I have no way of easily accessing it (Google Books link is here [2]). All of this is to say that if he is notable at all, it is in the context of The Beano and therefore we should redirect to it. Nomader (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 21:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to a consensus target per above. If sources are found that merit a separate article, material will be available. // Timothy :: talk 18:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pawan Singh (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. No significant coverage is in the article and I was unable to find any during a search. Most of the sources in the article and those I found during a search only mention his fight in a U-20 game a month ago. Alvaldi (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Oceania. Alvaldi (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 21:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found [3], [4], [5] (all of which go into his background), and [6], among many more sources. Young player with ongoing career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Das osmnezz Three of these sources are from three day span in February of this year that mention his fight in a U-20 match. The fourth from less than a month later about him being kicked of the U-20 team. Outside of failing WP:SUSTAINED and WP:BIO1E, none of these sources have the significant coverage to push him pass GNG. Neither does being young and having and ongoing career. All this you know. Alvaldi (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, not sure we have significant coverage here. Giant Snowman 21:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The first and third links above are literally identical, the first even says "Berikut profil dan biodata Pawan Pratap Singh pemain Fiji tersebut dikutip dari Suara.com." The second is from sportsstars.id, which has formulaic "profiles" on pretty much every athlete with a sports database presence. The fourth link is just repeating info from Fiji FA regarding the punching incident. Nowhere close to SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Youth footballer without any credible coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Thesixserra (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; the online coverage is not in-depth (just notes about the fight) and the onefootball.com article cites the user-edited site transfermarkt.com as the source of it's (trivial) coverage other than the fight. Jogurney (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 21:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andy Hayler[edit]

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

Subject is a food critic who clearly writes articles but is not the subject of any reliable independent coverage that I can find. This biographical article seems to be here to advertise his food website. The only citation is a five-line review of his website. Time for this article to go? Sionk (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nomination. fails WP:GNG. --hroest 23:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The concern raised seems to be about independent coverage of Andy Hayler as a food critic. There are many examples in fact. He is the restaurant critic for Elite Traveler Magazine, and his author page is here: https://elitetraveler.com/author/andy-hayler

Andy Hayler has dined at every 3 star Michelin restaurant in the world and there is considerable independent coverage of this. Examples include:

Business Insider

https://www.businessinsider.com/michelin-restaurant-expert-andy-hayler-2013-10?r=US&IR=T

The Daily Mail

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1102385/The-Real-Michelin-Man-Meet-devoted-foodie-whos-man-eat-Michelin-3-star-restaurant-world.html

The Caterer

https://www.thecaterer.com/news/michelin-stars-predictions-2020-guide

The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/food/2022/jun/17/not-a-place-to-relax-ynyshir-the-350-a-head-welsh-techno-inn-atop-the-national-restaurant-awards

Readers Digest

https://www.readersdigest.co.uk/food-drink/food-heroes/10-food-critics-you-should-know-about

World Gourmet Society

https://www.world-gourmet-society.com/members/andyhayler

There are many, many more such that I can provide. He was a guest critic on the successful TV series Masterchef: The Professionals for several seasons. See for example

https://www.worldofceres.com/andy-hayler-andyhayler-com/

https://www.thestaffcanteen.com/News/top-10-most-influential-chefs-of-the-past-and-next-decade-from-the-uk#/membership?more=1 Wyahaw (talk) 01:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thankyou. The Business Insider article/interview is certainly substantial (though largely Hayter talking about himself), The Readers Digest gives a useful profile of Hayter, but the others would have to be discounted - the Daily Mail is discredited as a source on Wikipedia, which The Caterer and Guardian articles contain quotes or opinions from Hayter about other things (not articles about Hayter). I'm still not convinced this meets WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete on account of the lack of sufficient acceptable sources that support independent and specific notability. Initiator nails it, above. Subject fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I think the improvment done on this article addresses nominator's concerns. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lars Petrus[edit]

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

Only primary sources. Search results only show similar primary or self-published sites or blogs, and mostly so in relation with the Petrus method, which should be described at Speedcubing#Solving methods instead. Article fails WP:ANYBIO, redirecting to the suggested (partial) merge location after the merge might be in order. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 20:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 20:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. A quick look in a Swedish newspaper archive (Mediearkivet) indicates a fair amount of non-trivial coverage. I'll try to update the article in a few days, when I have time. /Julle (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Seems like it could be viable, but there's no sources at the moment and it's hard to make the case for it without those sources.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll make an attempt to address this over the weekend. /Julle (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ping KatoKungLee – I've started adding soources now. /Julle (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - I added a few more sources. Seems like he was one of the first Rubik's Cube masters and he won an international title. There's likely more info out there, just a lot of his career happened pre-internet.KatoKungLee (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)KatoKungLee (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I've started adding sources. It's complicated because he was mainly active in the 1980s, and the sources are not easily accessible (I'd have to physically get to the one computer at the university in a neighbouring city to properly reawd them), but I could acess some extracts from 1980s newspaper articles. Also added more content from some more recent articles from Aftonbladet and sv:Språktidningen. (In the Expressen reference he is only mentioned in passing.) /Julle (talk) 19:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Julle - Yeah, I hear you. Pre-internet people are harder to find info on and pre-internet + foreign people are twice as hard to find info on. I have tried to suggest a rule be made to be a little more relaxed when it comes to those situations. The one thing I can say though is that going forward, it will be less and less of a problem due to social media and technology.KatoKungLee (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per the arguments mentioned below, the topic appears to meet the notability requirements. (non-admin closure) Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 16:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Franciszek Krajowski[edit]

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

20th century military general of unclear notability. According to the Polish Wikipedia, he was awarded the Virtuti Militari, but don't know if that helps him pass our notability standards, as WP:SOLDIER has been deprecated. Natg 19 (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Austria, Hungary, and Poland. Natg 19 (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Article has sourcing issues, topic does not. Aside from the Virtuti Militari, which is Poland’s highest military honor, I found this in-depth article from Radio Lublin https://radio.lublin.pl/2020/09/general-franciszek-krajowski-uhonorowany-w-terespolu-stanal-pomnik-bohatera-wojny-1920-roku/(https://radio-lublin-pl.translate.goog/2020/09/general-franciszek-krajowski-uhonorowany-w-terespolu-stanal-pomnik-bohatera-wojny-1920-roku/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp)

I see mentions in a variety of English language books on Polish history such as https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Ukrainian_Polish_Defensive_Alliance/2T9zYXqL56AC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Franciszek+Krajowski%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA107&printsec=frontcover, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Warsaw_1920/2oXUDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Franciszek+Krajowski%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA69&printsec=frontcover, https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Russian_Civil_War_1918_1921/3gACEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Franciszek+Krajowski%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA535&printsec=frontcover, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Roma_Gypsy_Presence_in_the_Polish_Lithua/C_4OEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Franciszek+Krajowski%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA245&printsec=frontcover. There are also a number of Polish language sources. I acknowledge none of these English sources are in particular detail, but there is sufficient bulk that he seems to be at least reasonably well known based on Polish language sources.

Biographical information is apparently also available in Generalicja Polska (I & II), by Henryk P. Kosk.

Accordingly, I think there’s enough coverage here to support notability under GNG or BIO.Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Terrible article, notable person. Rank of general, highest decoration (Virtuti Militari), and has a dedicated biography in a number of works, including the Polish Biographical Dictionary ([7]). I see other biographies of him, many short (footnote-size) but here's an entry in another reference work: [8]. And one more: [9]. Passes NBIO easily. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per sources mentioned above, hopefully they are added to the article. // Timothy :: talk 18:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. There is plenty of sourcing on the Polish Wikipedia article. Clearly meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep meets our notability guidelines. Bruxton (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Samurai Deeper Kyo#Characters as an WP:ATD. There is no need to delete the article beforehand, however, since the presence of unsourced content is no reason to make the history inaccessible $Salvio giuliano$ 21:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Samurai Deeper Kyo characters[edit]

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

The article only has one primary source. I wouldn't necessarily oppose to merge it with the main series article, but I don't think that there is any benefit in adding a large amount of unnecessary and unsourced content. Xexerss (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Xexerss (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and redirect to Samurai_Deeper_Kyo#Characters. Without any reliable secondary sources, there is no reason for a standalone list like this to exist. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Samurai Deeper Kyo, that way if there is any content to be salvaged (a source needs to be added) it can. --Fulmard (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Selective merge to Samurai Deeper Kyo; some content may be worth salvaging. Link20XX (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and redirect to Samurai_Deeper_Kyo#Characters per Fred Zepelin. // Timothy :: talk 18:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Samurai_Deeper_Kyo#Characters due to being mostly WP:FANCRUFT. No need to delete prior to redirect, some content may be useful to someone expanding this, eventually. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jamal al-Din Hamdan[edit]

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

Non-notable person. The article says he was one of 10 people sentenced to death c. 1860, but does not describe why he is independently notable. Natg 19 (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Lebanon, and Turkey. Natg 19 (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. Unsourced, my BEFORE showed nothing in journal databases. Ping me if IS RS with SIGCOV are added to the article (not here, but in the article). // Timothy :: talk 18:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: I can't see any notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted per G11. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

लाडली बहना योजना[edit]

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

Article written in Hindi on English Wikipedia. Subject appears to not be notable, poorly written in the few English parts. ImperialMajority (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 March 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This can be speedy-deleted I believe. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy delete - reading the translation, this appears to be pure promotion. It tells people the 'benefits' and 'objectives' of a scheme then the final part tells them how to sign up. No content worth retaining. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daniel Webster Debate Society[edit]

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

Nominating for deletion for a lack of notability. The subject appears to be a school club created by a single-purpose account (probably a club member) in 2017. Nearly all sourcing comes from the school newspaper (not independent), except for off-handed mentions in other publications. The leadership section suggests it may also be a form of self-promotion. Stopasianhate (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and New Hampshire. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 18:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete nothing in gnews and JSTOR. Only gets directory listings in gbooks. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Low Cab Forward trucks[edit]

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

Indiscriminate, fully uncited list of an also uncited and vague category of trucks (merely lower height versions of cabovers). The list itself appears to be entirely WP:OR; little chance of this ever being turned into a useful article. Any non-list content worth saving may to be merged with Cab over.
Two other users have attempted to delete this earlier: one incorrectly nominated it as WP:PROD in 2020 while the other simply added a ((delete)) tag and never completed the process (in 2021). Mr.choppers | ✎ 18:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some options:

Merge the list into the insanely long List of trucks. This list is a subset of that one, but the trucks list has a tag suggesting a split. If someone does get around to splitting it someday, it could be split into light/medium/heavy duty, or cab over/conventional.
Create a Low Cab Forward article. This would be a specific type of cab over vehicle, but it needs to be well defined. I tried with the lead sentence of the list, but it needs a reference. Then move the list there as examples. If there's not enough to justify a new LCF article, then at least define it in the Cab over article.
Expand the list to include all cab over trucks, not just "Low Cab Forward". This would involve splitting List of trucks as mentioned above, and it may be decided cab over/conventional isn't as good a way to split it as light/medium/heavy duty. --Vossanova ^o< 19:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Category:Cab over vehicles shows there are plenty of articles for this type of vehicle. They are defined as this in the articles linked to. This is a valid navigational and information list article. A list is far more valuable than a category as it allows for more information to be included. Adding in columns for additional information and images would make the article more useful. Dream Focus 15:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:CLN, WP:AOAL. // Timothy :: talk 20:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep meets our guide for WP:LISTN Bruxton (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Though I do agree the list article needs improvement per Dream Focus, adding some images and more information should do the trick. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 18:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marin Local Music[edit]

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

Based on the following reasons, the Marin Local Music article should be deleted:

1. The article appears to be promotional in nature, rather than being an objective and neutral source of information. The tone and content of the article suggest that it was written to promote Marin Local Music rather than to inform readers about the subject.

2. The article lacks independent, reliable sources that would establish the notability of the subject. While there are a few links to news articles, they seem to be promotional in nature and do not provide substantial coverage of the subject. Yellowstone caldera (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Organizations, and California. AllyD (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong delete. No evidence of notabiity. The article cites no sources. It describes a local social network which has a website. A Google search finds me just two hits: Wikipedia, and a Wikipedia mirror. Maproom (talk) 23:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong delete as totally non-notable: Article is fluffy, chatty and wholly unsourced. No great wonder about that last, as I find nothing about the organisation, even from 10 years ago (and even its abysmal WordPress site linked in the article didn't come up). Of the 5 ELs mentioned by nom, the first three are dead, the fourth is but a passing mention, and the fifth is an article promoting multiple upcoming local events where the second graf is about a battle of the bands coordinated in part by MLM. Nobody is writing about them, apparently only one person ever wrote for their 5-post blog site, and I'm guessing Shelley and Dave have moved on to something else. So should we. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 13:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I now notice, after looking at the page history, that the first 16 substantive edits (resulting in pure promo, e.g. "Check back in often as there are lots of features planned. Better yet, use the contact form to send us your ideas and feedback. Sign up if you haven't already and you too can support local music...") were by User:Funkipus and User:Dchampine, whom I suspect of being Shelley and Dave Champine, respectively. The initiators of the article's subject are apparently the initiators of the subject article. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 14:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Esken#Early history. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Victa Westlink Rail[edit]

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

Doesn’t have sources, few sources online, only model trains. I don’t think anyone knows about this rail system.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manny Manatee (talk • contribs) 17:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"only model trains" is irrelevant to the discussion and I don't see why it was included Garuda3 (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Were you able to find sources? I was expecting to myself, but I couldn't find anything secondary that was more than a passing mention. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take that as a no, then. Guess you just wanted to complain. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Selective merge and redirect into Esken#Early history. Probably also rename the target section as early history in the 21st century may sound a bit off for some readers. Something like the little-used "Lead-up" would communicate temporal relevance. TO THE CORE of the merge suggestion, Victa Westlink Rail existed less than a year and some of the article's content is missing in the very short target section. As things stand, there is no justification for an independent article on this, in hindsight, transitional company. gidonb (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge: Agree with above, a very select merge by an ~SME. // Timothy :: talk 20:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Esken. I do not say merge only because there is no sourced content in this article to merge in the first place. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 18:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frank E. Weiss[edit]

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

Non-notable college basketball player and Army officer. Subject of WP:ROUTINE coverage in high school and almost nothing afterwards. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBASKETBALL, and WP:BIO. Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Military, Basketball, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, also page created by a User who made minimal contributions and appears to be related to the subject. Mztourist (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability as a military figure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand-alone bio article and fails GNG. Kierzek (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete he does not meet our guidelines for inclusion. Bruxton (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should remain. Has notability on referenced media sources, multiple state sports records. Removing would limit knowledge base 2603:8081:4FF0:8840:6C4A:3E8E:85C7:8A9A (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator after sources provided. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nancy Drew: The Creature of Kapu Cave[edit]

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

No secondary sources in the article, and a BEFORE check yielded nearly nothing. Fails GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment plenty of reviews according to MobyGames [10] + Detroit Free Press review [11] Timur9008 (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Timur9008: Great! If there are no objections, I will cancel this nomination. Timur9008, could you please incorporate the above sources into the article? It would be very nice of you. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done added 3 reviews + added source for the release date. Timur9008 (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Numerous sources demonstrated, clearly passes WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Seems the nominator intends to withdraw the nomination, but in the meantime, just want to emphasize that there are definitely enough reliable sources to pass WP:NVG. Nomader (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 its been withdrawn anyway and clear consensus to keep (non-admin closure). Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Netherfield[edit]

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

Unsourced and could not find anything of use online. Page is also declared as a disambiguation page, not sure why. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Man am I stupid, I could have swore I looked back at the page history. I'd like to withdraw this. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 21:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a dab page between different places called Netherfield? Red Jay (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Some weird stuff has been going on in the edit history today. It looks like an attempt was made to change this legitimate disambiguation page into an article relating to the East Sussex village called Netherfield, which is currently covered only in the Battle, East Sussex article, although the text in the article appeared to be garbled. "Netherfield, East Sussex" is a legitimate potential article: I can put my hand on several sources which cover it, and it arguably "should" exist; but it needs to be at Netherfield, East Sussex and "Netherfield" needs to remain a disambiguation page. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 23:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment the dab page has already been restored, and I've also taken pity on the place and created a sourced stub for Netherfield, East Sussex instead of the unsourced content with which someone tried to hijack the dab page. Surprising to find that a village with a grade II* listed 1860 church, a school and two pubs hasn't had an article before - there may be a history of deletion somewhere but I couldn't find it. PamD 08:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Keep: there is now no problem. The apparent problem was because a dab page had been hijacked: it's always worth having a quick look at the page history. PamD 09:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Keep. Always a good idea to read the edit history before nominating for deletion. This was a perfectly good disambiguation page before some IP started messing around with it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If an editor sees it appropriate to merge some of the content, the page may be undeleted and the content merged. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Raa Raa the Noisy Lion episodes[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Fails NLIST. COPYVIO issues in episode descriptions (from TV guide). Significant OR. Previously drafted User talk:Pam Hueste#List of Raa Raa the Noisy Lion episodes moved to draftspace but restored without improvement. // Timothy :: talk 12:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Lists, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: here's the copyvio report . At the very least, this needs reporting to the noticeboard, though the other issues make me tip towards delete. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 13:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Clear case of Not TV guide. Shankargb (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep after excising and revdel'ing the copyvio descriptions. Shankargb and TimothyBlue need to go read WP:NOTTVGUIDE, and explain how An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. is relevant to this list. Hint: it's not. This is the sort of list that is kept routinely for notable television shows without individually notable episodes. Jclemens (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Even if this was not a factor, per NLIST, there are not independent reliable sources addressing the subject directly and indepth from Ind RS. TV Guide listing do not show notability. // Timothy :: talk 21:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I can't see how WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here, since that merely says that we shouldn't list upcoming and current events, while this is a list of historical episodes. The question is whether you consider Raa Raa notable enough to deserve an episode list. If he is, then splitting it off into an article separate from the main article on Raa Raa does make sense. Elemimele (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Yet another no-sourced episode list for a show designed to have limited plots on purpose and whose actual target audience wouldn't know how to access this list or care about Zebby's fear of zipwires day-to-day. Tired of these preschool show episode lists, and they just need to go already. Nate • (chatter) 22:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Every notable television show lists its episodes, and when that list is long enough it gets made into a spinout article. Sometimes people look at the name NOTTVGUIDE and don't actually read what it says. We need to update that guideline to avoid future confusion since this does come up repeatedly. Dream Focus 02:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment It has one source, which is literally just its TV Guide page, and the show hasn't even aired on cable/broadcast television in the United States. Not acceptable. Nate • (chatter) 15:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would it need to be shown in the United States to be notable? Three seasons and 78 episodes shown in the United Kingdom. Dream Focus 19:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment The article needs sources. One source, involving a listings site not native to the show's originating nation, is by far not acceptable. A list article, even one with the line Raa Raa and his friends launch Huffty's whooshy whooshers into the air and lose them in the jungle, requires sources just as much as any other article. And the TVG source just carries one generic logline, which makes it pretty much useless. Nate • (chatter) 19:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not every TV show has a list of episodes, Lists have to pass NLIST. // Timothy :: talk 15:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Really? Which television show notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, which has too many episodes to fit on its main page, does not have a spinout page for its episodes? Dream Focus 19:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 16:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Lacks sources supporting that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:16, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge list to the parent series article... just without the summaries. Or just recover the list seen in this revision and delete the standalone list page. George Ho (talk) 05:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 18:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adam El Hagar[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ENT. Trivial mention in reliable sources; minor roles in performances. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Theatre. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Lead film and theatre roles have been added, there are also links to interviews with the subject in major publications ie: NME. More roles and interviews will be added with proper sources listed. Adamkel17 (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ENT. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 16:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leaning Keep - From the page there are multiple reliable sources listed however the ones with more significant coverage are lesser known publications. From searching online the artist clearly has appeared in multiple notable projects from notable filmmakers, so could be grounds for a keep, but if not, @Adamkel17 you could opt to appeal for the page to be moved to user-space, as it seems the person is likely to become notable. My two cents.

Yosh2006 (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Yosh2006, this is unrelated to the discussion, but I couldn't help noticing that you have made 17 total edits to Wikipedia, the last one being 12 years ago. What brought you here today? Magnolia677 (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Adamkel17 (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment closing admin should determine if this merits investigation. // Timothy :: talk 00:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete – I can't find any source that passes GNG (independent, reliable, and contains significant coverage of the subject). I'll also note that user Adamkel17 who !voted keep above both created this article and shares a first name, it seems. WP:Autobiography concerns, of course. Nythar (💬-🍀) 17:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please note that I am a fan of the subject, and not the subject themselves! I created this account to make a page for this actor. Thanks. Adamkel17 (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. Source eval table:

Comments	Reference
Promo for school, not IS RS with SIGCOV about the subject	University of Essex". www.east15.ac.uk. Retrieved 2023-03-15.
Promo, mention "The cast includes Adam El Hagar"	2. ^ Young, Graham (2016-11-14). "Electric Cinema shoots full length silent movie". BirminghamLive. Retrieved 2023-03-15.
Promo, subject provided input	3. ^ Hanson-Firestone, Dana (2019-10-27). "10 Things You Didn't Know About Adam El Hagar". TVovermind. Retrieved 2023-03-15.
About "The Beastie Boys musical", no SIGCOV about the Subject, Interview	Licensed To Ill: Adam El Hagar on bringing hip hop to the stage \| Theatre.London · The official home of London Theatre". www.theatre.london. Retrieved 2023-03-15.
About "The Beastie Boys musical", no SIGCOV about the Subject	5. ^ John, Rachel St (November 25, 2015). "Feature: Taking on the Beastie Boys in Licensed to Ill".
About "The Beastie Boys musical", no SIGCOV about the Subject	6. ^ Love, Catherine (2015-11-25). "Licensed to Ill review – DIY show gives props to the Beastie Boys". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2023-03-15.
About "The Beastie Boys musical", no SIGCOV about the Subject	7. ^ "Beastie Boys Musical Theater Production Licensed to Ill Tells Story of Their Career". Pitchfork. 2015-10-23. Retrieved 2023-03-15.
About "The Beastie Boys musical", no SIGCOV about the Subject	8. ^ Duggins, Alexi. "Licensed to Ill". Time Out London.
About "The Beastie Boys musical", no SIGCOV about the Subject	9. ^ Kelly, Rona. "Review: LICENSED TO ILL, Southwark Playhouse, 2 December 2016". BroadwayWorld.com.
About "The Beastie Boys musical", no SIGCOV about the Subject	10. ^ Perry, Kevin EG (2015-11-27). "The Beastie Boys Story Is Now A Play With A Puppet Rick Rubin – But Does It Work On The Stage?". NME. Retrieved 2023-03-15.
About "The Beastie Boys musical", no SIGCOV about the Subject	WhatsOnStage". www.whatsonstage.com. Retrieved 2023-03-15.
Database listing, About "The Beastie Boys musical", no SIGCOV about the Subject	12. ^ "Offie nominations 2016".
Database style listing, mentions subjects name	13. ^ "Theatre & Technology Awards 2017 Winners - Theatre and Technology Awards". 2017-10-26. Retrieved 2023-03-15.
Cast listing, not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	New. "Catherine The Great: First Look \| New Pictures". www.newpictures.co.uk. Retrieved 2023-03-15.
Cast listing, not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	15. ^ Kanter, Jake (October 23, 2019). "'Succession's Sarah Snook & 'Billions' Star David Costabile Among Cast For AMC Anthology Drama From Will Bridges & Brett Goldstein".
Cast listing mention, not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	16. ^ Hoad, Phil (2022-11-21). "Amaryllis review – the oddest split-screen silent-movie musical you'll ever see". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2023-03-15.
Cast listing mention, not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	17. ^ "Disclaimer (2023) - Cast & Crew on MUBI". mubi.com. Retrieved 2023-03-15.
Database listing, cast listing	18. ^ "British Council Film: Cold Blow Lane". film-directory.britishcouncil.org. Retrieved 2023-03-15.

BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. // Timothy :: talk 00:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 18:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hot Corner (Armenian TV program)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Entirely unsourced, non-notable TV programme, failing GNG. See previous AfD, but title was recreated, after being 'soft deleted due to minimal participation'. Silikonz💬 15:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Armenia. Silikonz💬 15:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Wikipedia is not a Wiki covering every TV program past and present. TH1980 (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and salt per nom. The age of the show demonstrates their will be no new sources, just unsourced recreations. // Timothy :: talk 20:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete without salt. This doesn't seem notable, but the first AFD was practically an expired PROD and this is a proper AFD. If it's tenaciously recreated, it should be salted, but not yet. — ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 16:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete As of now non-notable. Nocturnal781 (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 18:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yellow Pages (Armenian TV program)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Entirely unsourced, non-notable TV programme, failing GNG. Previous AfD here, but title was recreated, after being 'soft deleted due to minimal participation'. Silikonz💬 15:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Armenia. Silikonz💬 15:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Again, Wikipedia is not a Wiki covering every TV show under the sun.TH1980 (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and salt per nom. The age of the show demonstrates their will be no new sources that are not promo, just unsourced or promo recreations. // Timothy :: talk 20:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete without salt. This doesn't seem notable, but the first AFD was practically an expired PROD and this is a proper AFD. If it's tenaciously recreated, it should be salted, but not yet. — ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 16:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. With established editors not coming to a consensus about the depth of sourcing, it does not appear that a consensus will form here. Star Mississippi 02:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simplicity Two Thousand[edit]

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

The artist's article, Afterlife (musician), was deleted years ago for not being notable. One AllMusic review doesn't appear to be enough to sustain this article for an album made by a non-notable artist. It doesn't appear to have charted or have any other coverage easily found through a Google search. As there is no target to redirect it to, nominating for deletion. Ss112 10:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 February 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition to the AllMusic page, I found this writeup from Mojo and this blurb. It also appears in this ranking from Muzik which isn't much but might be worth including if this gets kept. Worth noting that I only found some of those results by searching "Simplicity 2000" rather than the title we have. QuietHere (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - The book page located by QuietHere (above) could help, but that is one review when we hope to see multiple reviews. Otherwise little useful can be found about the album. Since the musician's article did not survive on WP, neither should this album article. Could also be speedy deleted per WP:A9. (But note that the musician got deleted via an expired PROD, rather than a full debate.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 00:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Having a single source is the same as having original research. See also my assessment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speck of Gold. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tagging it for Speedy Deletion as an unremarkable album with no artist's page. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Why? I Ask don't tag AfD-s in progress for speedy deletion. –Vipz (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's commonly done. This isn't the first time it's happened nor is it the last. The only reason it didn't stay is because another user thought that there was a credible claim of significance. I personally thought it should be deleted under A9 at the time and an admin did too. Ironically, if I hadn't nominated it for speedy deletion, and let the nomination run its course, it would have completely been deleted without any recourse of a potential WP:Heymann. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is relisted after a speedy deletion that failed to obtain consensus support at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 March 4.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete No album reviews found, lots of tracks named "Simplicity", nothing by this person. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. I'm exploring the potential of WP:HEYing this so bear with me for a few more minutes (days). —Alalch E. 23:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @QuietHere: Wanna add some more prose? There are three reviews: AllMusic, the Mojo book, and the NZ The Press mag (which I added). —Alalch E. 22:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Done so. And now that I've had a look at what we've collected, I think this could reasonably squeeze through as a weak keep. QuietHere (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - @QuietHere: Nice! BTW, is there any chance for this not to be an orphan? :) —Alalch E. 02:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - There are a lot of results in here, most of which I'm sure are totally unrelated but some may be useful. QuietHere (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        Done Deorphaned by QuietHere.—Alalch E. 15:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Requesting input on WP:HEY. @Ss112, Doomsdayer520, Why? I Ask, and Oaktree b: (not pinging Vipz as he hasn't commented on the merits, only on the process): The article has changed a lot since the nomination. References were found, prose was added, and it was deorphaned. I think we have a serious case to consider here, so please review the article as it is now, and leave a comment about possibly changing your !vote. Thanks—Alalch E. 14:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have an AfD with a only a single sort-of "weak keep" pseudo-vote, and a deletion review debate that couldn't even reach a consensus on when to close the AfD in light of a conflicting speedy delete request. I can hardly imagine a weaker justification for putting effort into developing an article. But you managed to dig up a few one-paragraph reviews from sources that seem to know nothing about the musician who made the album. This whole saga is a triumph of procedure worship, but maybe someone will read the article once a year. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, non-notability is also not inherited. Per WP:NALBUM: An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline. (emphasis mine). —Alalch E. 15:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never have to look at the article again so none of this bothers me. But since we're in a policy parade here, allow me to re-emphasize my own link above at "procedure worship". Or in the official and less snarky terms, Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles... Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. This saga has resulted in an album being deemed notable because it narrowly evades rules on non-notability, and because the community couldn't figure out when to close a deletion discussion. Or in other words, this album is just barely by the thinnest possible sliver and closest possible shave not non-notable. Does being barely not non-notable make it notable? Maybe. I would rather see such effort put into an article on the musician. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: Independently from your comment, I actually requested refund for the musician and got it (it's in the redirect's history). We're clearly on the same side here. This AfD leans into absurdist humor, but at the end of it, we might as well console ourselves with a cute little article. If you remember my !vote in the DRV I would have been 200% happy with this having been deleted at the time, but I became interested in the topic a little bit after the fact, mainly because of the borderlineness of this even being an album in the first place (it both is and isn't). edit: I mean... it is. —Alalch E. 15:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On a more serious note, notability is not a question of process, it's a question of content. —Alalch E. 15:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have not changed my vote from far above, and will stick with the "significant" requirement at WP:SIGCOV. The reviews are short and vague, and even an extremely forgiving assessment finds that they just barely scratch the surface of what we need here. Again, I don't have to look at the article ever again. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Additional time that was allowed by the relist which followed the overturning of the A9 speedy deletion at Deletion review, and increased interest in this article (and its AfD), which followed from the DRV, enabled editors to dig deeper, do a proper WP:BEFORE, and actually find references that establish this topic's notability per WP:NALBUM. Encyclopedic prose was added to the article based on this. While the preceding delete !votes are fine as a reflection of the state of the article at the time of nomination (and after doing only a superficial BEFORE, at best), the arguments such as ... one review ..., ... single source ..., No album reviews found ... etc. are obviously superseded. —Alalch E. 16:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since the article was improved while the AfD was ongoing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 15:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's still a !delete from me, I'm not seeing substantial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~: Before I give my rationale, I want to give a shout out and credit to Alalch E. above who has done an absolutely incredible herculean effort to improve the article to meet WP:NMUSIC's first criterion. Unfortunately, I don't think that it satisfies the criterion right now, but it's closer than some of the other delete !voters seem to be reckoning with. The Allmusic review ([12]) would qualify in my opinion as an edge case of a "non-trivial published work", if just. The Mojo Collection article is mostly quotes from Steve Miller and doesn't feel like it qualifies as non-trivial to me because of the paucity of coverage here ([13]). The mini guide is plainly trivial ([14]), and the last source is an interview on a non-notable blog ([15]). I also searched for sources on newspapers.com but didn't find anything in either the UK or US that I could add to this. It's definitely an edge case now, but I'm inclined to lean towards the delete side of that edge currently. Nomader (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nomader: Thanks! Please take look at the third actual review in the NZ daily The Press, which is accessible through the Wikipedia Library. That review and the two others (Allmusic and Mojo; the latter indeed being weaker but it's still a book, and its authors chose this album, apparently, for being seen as a significant release, representative of a certain style of that period's contemporary music, however dated and ephemeral that may seem now) are what I deem notability to rest on, certainly not the blog.—Alalch E. 16:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the ping here! Completely missed this reference when I was looking over the page. It's about the same length as the Allmusic one and it's something that I'd likely consider an edge case as well as a "non-trivial" work, but based on this and the other sources, I'm now on the other edge of the fence and think it's a Weak Keep. But really well done digging through to find all of this coverage. Nomader (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep after the excellent sourcing discussion above, I am persuaded there is sufficient sourcing to satisfy Wikipedia:NALBUMS.Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vineland Cemetery[edit]

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

Almost everything currently in this article appears unverifiable. The only maybe-minimally-reliable source cited is this survey, but it's rather out of date. The only RS coverage I can find is a brief local FOX segment that discusses how a Publix was eventually built around the cemetery. A cemetery on a supermarket's land would be an interesting thing to have an article on, but 2 minutes on local news isn't significant coverage (else basically any local landmark would be notable), and as far as I can tell no SNG applies here. If this isn't deleted, I think WP:TNT applies due to the article's apparent reliance on self-published sources and/or original research (note the creator's apparent COI with its restoration), and would suggest stubbing it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: This is clearly not-notable. I did a newspapers.com search and only found this minor thing regarding an Eagle Scout project and clearly doesn't help to establish notability ([16]). It was listed as a cemetery in a list of cemeteries book with no detail. Unfortunately, there's just nothing here. Nomader (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, it's trying to make something out of not much of anything, there probably is something to be found in the sourcing, but not enough for an article here. Brief mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – Hardly any reliable sources that describe this cemetery exist, and as far as I've seen, none prove its notability. Nythar (💬-🍀) 17:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - As per the others here - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 19:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep with a guest appearance from snow. (non-admin closure) ((ping|ClydeFranklin)) (t/c) 16:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leo Lutwak[edit]

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. As I wrote in my unprod edit summary, and as this WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE generic no-WP:BEFORE no-depth nomination totally fails to address, "Obituaries (not paid death notices) in three major national newspapers (NYT, LAT, WaPo) makes notability very clear." I didn't also include in the edit summary that with six publications with over 100 citations each (from a time when citations were not as high as they are now) he has a good case for WP:PROF#C1 as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, bordering on a speedy keep per the third rationale. The obituaries from national news orgs that David Eppstein cites are clearly sufficient on their own ([17], [18]), but I decided to look for some other ones. News coverage was 'extremely' easy to find. From newspaper searches, I found [19], [20], [21]. He's one of the main featured focuses of a book ([22]) and was featured in another ([23]) about his work on against Fen-Phen. This isn't a comprehensive pulling -- I just randomly pulled specific examples here, and there's more. Clear keep. Nomader (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, based on the prior two posters. Clearly this should pass based on WP:NPROF with multiple papers with 100+ citations as well as WP:GNG based on obituaries and newspaper articles. --hroest 17:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I don't disagree with the three users above regarding the keep in this case, though the rationale David Eppstein puts forward seems very US-centric, introducing a criteria for notability largely limited to US residents (though I am sure that's not the intention). Jeppiz (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not at all. I would consider someone with published obituaries in The Times and The Guardian, or in The Times of India and The Hindu, or Le Monde and Le Figaro, etc. etc., in exactly the same way. Also, it is not "a rationale I am putting forward". It is WP:GNG. If we have in-depth coverage in reliable sources, independent of each other and of the subject, then the subject is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. It is a dreadful article and needs expanding to explain what he did, where it had an impact, and where it did not. The Google Books links posted above make it clear that it would be possible to write an article that said something meaningful about the man's work.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stephen Waddington[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has been deleted previously, was REFUNDed, but no work done on it at all, so still not meeting GNG nor academic notability; all mentions seem to be PR or trivial, nothing showing notability. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 13:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete nothing here indicates notability. No change since last deletion either. --hroest 03:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and previous AfD. Jeppiz (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. There appears to be some chance of WP:NAUTHOR, but this would generally require several reliably-sourced reviews of more than one work. I find [24][25], which might be reviews (though I am not able to read either one at the moment, and am uncertain about reliability of the 2nd). No other signs of notability, and what I see is well short of what I'm looking for in NAUTHOR. Following the discussion in case other editors find more reviews. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I would concur with the views above that there is nothing to suggest the subject meets notability requirements. Dunarc (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 18:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mohamed Al-Agha[edit]

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

These related articles were created by the same user and read promotional (eg. "The secret of his success" at Mohamed Al-Agha). I've decided to nominate the three of them together due to this. Reading through the sources, they are very obviously promotional, likely paid-for, so the two companies are not close to meeting WP:NORG as there is no independent content available about them.

The same can be said about sources at Mohamed Al-Agha, which are also not independent. His only claim for notability would be receiving the Order of the Rising Sun. I don't have enough knowledge to be able to say if receiving the award equals auto-notability, though looking through these two lists, I don't think so.

In a confusing way, both of the company articles say that the Al-Agha Company itself has received the Order of the Rising Sun while the article of Mohamed Al-Agha says that he himself received it. According to our own article of the award, it's reserved for people only, so mentioning the award everywhere is just some PR bs.

There is also doubt as to whether he actually received that award. The only sources mentioning it are the spammy sources I mentioned above. He isn't on the two lists I linked but I don't know if that's all of them. ~Styyx^Talk? 12:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Companies, and Egypt. ~Styyx^Talk? 12:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2

الثالث Mohamed Agha on the site of the global West Muhammad Al-Agha on the Western Global website and added several sites [26] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy Yelzer (talk • contribs) 13:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3 [27] [28] [29] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy Yelzer (talk • contribs) 14:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[30] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy Yelzer (talk • contribs) 14:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was said that he was a charitable man. Watch this link. He said, “My family and I are under the command of any orphan bride.”

Al-Agha helps those who are about to get married [31] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy Yelzer (talk • contribs) 14:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My hobby is writing articles about famous people, about stars, about prominent people, so I watched his work and met a person It was successful. I made a frying pan for him and his companies, and I have fulfilled my right with you. Thank you and everyone who is a contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy Yelzer (talk • contribs) 14:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A link also predicts that Muhammad Al-Agha is the founder of Al-Agha Electronics [32], [33] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy Yelzer (talk • contribs) 19:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete all. this user is sockpuppet, he promotes himself and his company globally, he has 10 puppets on Arabic Wikipedia, he created several promotional articles for himself and his company and they all got deleted. [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] The articles on the English Wikipedia are not notable and should have been deleted. All the sources are paid and unreliable.--فيصل (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another source on the uwn network has a picture of Muhammad Al-Agha, says Muhammad Al-Agha, founder of Al-Agha Electronics May 20, 2022 [41] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy Yelzer (talk • contribs) 22:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Faisal, I Jimmy Yelzer do not have any account on the °encyclopedia except for one account 22:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy Yelzer (talk • contribs)

Muhammad Al-Agha originated from a shower installer to the owner of Al-Agha Company [42] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy Yelzer (talk • contribs) 22:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creator has been g-locked. ~Styyx^Talk? 12:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. I believe that this puff piece is self promotion and the subject doesn't satisy Wikipedia's notability criteria. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The two companies don't meet WP:ORGCRIT, Mohamed Al-Agha is a recreation of the deleted page Mohamed Al-Agha Qus, and should be deleted per WP:G5 and WP:G11. --Karim talk to me :)..! 09:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete --Alaa :)..! 12:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mohamed Al-Agha receives the Medal of Paulownia Flowers from the Japanese government [43] [44]

Muhammad Al-Agha, founder of Al-Agha Company and Al-Agha Group, is awarded the Order of the Paulownia Flowers by the Japanese government [45] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkrywlyzyz (talk • contribs) 02:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So I say that the Order of the Rising Sun isn't enough for notability and magically he receives the next higher award two days later, proving that this entire thing is fake. Funny people you are. ~Styyx^Talk? 02:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete all: Fails GNG, BIO, CORP. I believe the articles are obviously promotional, some appear to have been deleted before. As for the BLP they need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse and active businesses are also at risk for abuse without clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 21:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comment Deleted two blog/re-post citations from the medal article, leaving one which appears to be from Al Aharam newspaper (could be fake, but I can't tell and won't remove it). I have tried with several different searches to find this award on Japanese websites and have been unable to do so. As far as I can tell there is no public announcement of the conferral [46] [47] Oblivy (talk) 06:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oblivy The Al-Ahram used in the article doesn't appear to be the RS Al-Ahram which we have an article on since the urls don't match. The source for the claim is from "alahram-platform.com" while their actual website in Arabic is "gate.ahram.org.eg". ~Styyx^Talk? 13:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough. It did look fishy and I tried to signal that but I wasn’t in a position to say. After digesting the comments and following all the zaniness today from the editor(s) of the article I’m at delete. Awards page should probably be fully reverted - will do that now. Oblivy (talk) 13:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Search in Arabic وسام زهور بولونيا
Search in Arabic محمد الأغا أوسمة
Search in Arabic محمد الأغا حصل علي
Search in Arabic محمد الأغا

You will find on the Egyptian stars website and the pulse network saying this news is transferred from the Egyptian stars website the intention of you is still mentioned the source is from Egyptian stars so according to the Al-Ahram newspaper the news is published and there is no copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkrywlyzyz (talk • contribs) 08:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zef Mirdita[edit]

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

With an h-Index of 10, a high citation count of 38, and no qualifying positions, does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR, and does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. For the reasons identified by the nominator. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Due to the language barrier, I'm unable to check for academic reviews of his books, so I'll hold off on a !vote. From what I can see based on this and the Albanian Wikipedia article, he appears to be quite highly recognized for his contributions to the fields of Albanology and (less so) Illyrology, including having received presidential awards specifically for his contributions. Curbon7 (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment given that much of his career took place pre-internet, and he was working primarily outside the usual set of collaborating Western countries, and his expertise is in a field of limited interest to those from the UK, US or most of Western Europe, it's impressive that he is as cited as he is. If I lift his accomplishments and place them in the 21st C in North America, I think it almost certain he'd have landed a named chair, been editor of a journal, or otherwise met NPROF. We need to match our criteria to the subject. I'd be very worried about deleting him unless someone with specific knowledge of Albanian language and culture declares he's not notable in that context. My edit summary is: "don't just delete academics because they lived a long time ago, somewhere else, and we don't speak their language". Elemimele (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Albania, and Kosovo. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Am I missing something? How does he not meet WP:GNG? He's in two biographical dictionaries, and has significant coverage like this [48] (already linked on article). Since nomination, the article has been added to show his awards (like this one [49]), so it now looks to me like he passes all three criteria at WP:ANYBIO. -- asilvering (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have cited a few reviews in the article, showing a pass of WP:AUTHOR on top of the above. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Phil Bridger If you intended this as a "keep" !vote, you forgot the "keep" at the beginning, fyi. -- asilvering (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I didn't start my comment with a bolded statement of what I want to happen, not because I forgot it but because such statements lead people to treat these discussions as battlegrounds rather than discussions that should lead to consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG with entries in two dictionaries and awards. Probably no pass due to GS profile and its citations but everything else is more than enough. --hroest 13:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I suspect that as a subject involving book publications in a non-global language, notability through journal citations is going to be difficult to document. But the multiple book reviews mentioned above make a borderline case for WP:AUTHOR, and inclusion in two national dictionaries and a published academic-journal obituary should be more than enough for WP:GNG. GNG-notable scholars don't lose their notability merely for not passing other notability criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per the sources mentioned by asilvering above. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep barely. Also he once thought about being an athlete and worked at an institution with a sports team, so he passes something in NSPORTS. // Timothy :: talk 01:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close; overwhelming community consensus as elaborated in WP:NPOL is that members of state/provincial legislative bodies are presumed notable. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sandeep Singh Patel[edit]

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

BLP May not meet Wikipedia's GNG and promotion Endrabcwizart (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - while a poorly cited article, as a member of a state legislative assembly, he meets WP:NPOL.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy keep: This is the second time in less than 48 hours that you launch an AfD on a clearly notable subject, arguing that there is COI/advertising where there is none. I really want to know how you determined this to be a COI. Curbon7 (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zachary Selden[edit]

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

Deputy UN Secretary's don't have automatic notability. With an h-Index of 9, and no qualifying academic positions, he doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR, and he doesn't have enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Politicians, Military, and California. TJMSmith (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: I think this one is quite marginal, falling on the fail side of that line. He's certainly accomplished, and I was able to find a few ([50][51]) academic reviews of his 1999 book, but he seems to fall short of both WP:NPROF and WP:NAUTHOR. I wouldn't be surprised if, and in fact expect, him to become notable sometime in the next decade, but he's simply not there at the moment. Preference to an WP:ATD redirect, but I can't figure out one that works. Curbon7 (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As an adde., a small handful of reviews concentrated on a single book is not typically sufficient for NAUTH. Curbon7 (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
out of curiosity, why would a book with several independent reviews not qualify as as WP:NAUTHOR#3: " major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," - it seems a book with the amount of citations and independent reviews would fulfill the two criteria (well-known and independent reviews). Though one may argue that an article about the book itself would be more appropriate in that case than an article about the author. --hroest
Keep: I think this one is a good start. It could maybe use some more, which is in progress, but I think the article already meets criteria 7 of WP:NPROF which requires that "[a] person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." Selden seems to have met that through his work in NATO and his well published commentary on NATO expansion, especially in the last year. Criteria 1 of WP:NAUTHOR seems to have been met as well, requiring that "the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Selden has been fairly widely cited given the sources that are already present, if this needs to be confirmed by additional sources, then so be it, but already as is this seems to be the case. All of this is to say, sure, it could use some work and is clearly a work in progress, but I think its a good start and the article already demonstrates its notability. - Navarre0107 (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: per WP:NAUTHOR based on the two reviews found by Curbon7. --hroest 17:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition to the two reviews above, I also found these [52] [53] [54] which gives a total of 5 reviews of two independent books. --hroest 19:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep (weaK). Source eval:

Comments	Reference
One paragraph bio, not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, I believe they have worked with source, not IS	1. "Zachary Selden". Foreign Policy Research Institute. Retrieved 2023-03-01.
Two paragraph bio, not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, I believe they have worked with source, not IS	2. ^ "Zachary Selden". College of Europe. Retrieved 2023-03-20.
One paragraph bio, not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, I believe they have worked with source, not IS	3. ^ Jump up to:a b "Zachary Selden". Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida. 2022.
Interviewed for an article, not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	4. ^ Bumpers, Kyle (2022-04-15). "Gainesville church's donations make their way to Ukraine". WUFT National Public Radio. Retrieved 2023-03-01.
Single sentence Bio. not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, I believe they have worked with source, not IS	5. ^ "Zachary Selden". Hoover Institution. Retrieved 2023-03-01.
By subject, primary, not IS, not about the subject	6. ^ "Will Finland and Sweden Joining NATO Deepen the Alliance's Problems?". War on the Rocks. 2022-05-31. Retrieved 2023-03-01.
Not IS for subject, recap of a university event, not about the subject	7. ^ Barnett, Lauren (2022-03-07). "University of Florida Experts Weigh in on the War in Ukraine". UF CLAS News. Retrieved 2023-03-01.
Mention of subject's name, but no SIGCOV about the Subject addressing directly and indepth	8. ^ Jump up to:a b Schmitz, Sam (2022-06-08). "Don't give up on NATO". The Michigan Daily. Retrieved 2023-03-01.
Single quote by subject. Not about subject, not SIGCOV addressing subject directly and indepth	9. ^ "Finland, Sweden Offer NATO an Edge as Rivalry Warms Up North". VOA. Retrieved 2023-03-01.
Single quote by subject. Not about subject, not SIGCOV addressing subject directly and indepth	10. ^ Douglas, Isabella (2022-03-17). "Attacks on Ukraine ignite UF student support". WUFT National Public Radio. Retrieved 2023-03-01.
Single quote by subject. Not about subject, not SIGCOV addressing subject directly and indepth	11. ^ Talmor, Angélique (2022-09-20). "La Francia dovrebbe abbracciare la relazione transatlantica e guidarla". L'Indro (in Italian). Retrieved 2023-03-06.
Worldcat entry, not SIGCOV	12. ^ David, Charles Philippe (1993). Foreign policy failure in the White House : reappraising the fall of the shah and the Iran-Contra Affair. Nancy Ann Carrol, Zachary A. Selden. Lanham: University Press of America. ISBN 0-8191-9075-6. OCLC 27380620.
Quotes from subject, not SIGCOV about the subject	13. ^ Welch, David A. (1993). "Review of Foreign Policy Failure in the White House: Reappraising the Fall of the Shah and the Iran-Contra Affair". International Journal. 49 (1): 170–171. doi:10.2307/40202926. ISSN 0020-7020.
Primary	14. ^ Selden, Zachary A. (1999). Economic sanctions as instruments of American foreign policy. Westport, Conn.: Praeger. ISBN 0-275-96387-X. OCLC 39672044.
Quotes from subject, not SIGCOV about the subject	15. ^ Kaempfer, William H. (2000). "Review of Economic Sanctions as Instruments of American Foreign Policy". The International History Review. 22 (3): 742–744. ISSN 0707-5332.
Worldcat entry, not SIGCOV	16. ^ Lis, John J. (2003). NATO burdensharing after enlargement. Zachary A. Selden. New York: Novinka Books. ISBN 1-59033-741-7. OCLC 52091308.
Worldcat entry, not SIGCOV	17. ^ Selden, Zachary A. (2016). Alignment, alliance, and American grand strategy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-12212-7. OCLC 956482294.

The individual is obviously a SME and has been sought out by various RS, academic institutions. While the sources don't have SIGCOV about the subject, I think they do show WP:NPROF is met "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." // Timothy :: talk 01:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Deputy Secretary-General of NATO is a significant position. And clearly meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hamburg-Eimsbütteler Ballspiel-Club[edit]

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

Has been tagged for months for improvement without any. Currently there is not a single decent source from an independent, reliable, secondary reference. Was draftified, and returned to mainspace, again without improvement. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. English football clubs are considered notable if they played in the FA Cup (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability.) Hamburg-Eimsbütteler Ballspiel-Club played in the DFB-Pokal in 1953. (The DFB-Pokal is German equivalent of the FA Cup). The sourcing is an area where the article could be improved - but there are two citations to German newspaper articles and a citation to a German football archive, so the position is not as bad as the nominator thinks. The good days for this football club were in the pre-internet era. Good sources are likely to be old German-language year-books and newspaper articles. There is no possible reason for thinking that these do not exist.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - The team competed in the 1935 Tschammerpokal. The rules at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability state "England: Clubs that play or have played at step 6 of the National League System (level 10 of the English football league system), or in the FA Cup, FA Trophy, FA Amateur Cup or FA Vase generally meet WP:GNG criteria." The same rules apply to Germany and other countries with Fully professional Leagues. Other references are being added currently. KatoKungLee (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Neither of the above votes are based on policy. Recent discussions regarding sports related SNGs clearly indicate that GNG must be met. And currently this one does not.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed - there is AFD consensus that has deleted/redirected early FA Cup clubs. Giant Snowman 09:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Please see the updated references. I added around 10-15 links. There's about 15 more than can be added if needed here - https://www.eimsbuetteler-nachrichten.de/tag/hebc/ and there's another 12 that could be added from here - https://www.mopo.de/?s=HEBC. KatoKungLee (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Easily passes GNG with multiple sources added for this historic German club. Onel5969 Can I ask why you feel the need to state in your nomination "Has been tagged for months for improvement without any." The article has only been around since January, I see no messages on the creators page, or the talk page for the article. When we talk about creating wikipedia as a group project of multiple uses, to me from my point of view, that seems the opposite here. Communication is key to creating a good article, but your lack of, does concern me. I see none of that surrounding the creation of this article at AfD. Govvy (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, have had multiple conversations with this editor regarding their poorly referenced and non-notable articles. His personal attacks have made further interaction kept to a minimum. I said "Has been tagged for months for improvement without any", because it's been tagged for months without improvement. There are no messages on the editors talk page because they have deleted multiple communications, including when this article was draftified. But thank you for the AGF. Would have been nice if they had done this work on the article before being forced to by this AfD.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It sometimes takes people time to realise the need to do some thing - but he/she is learning - for example.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - enough coverage. Giant Snowman 09:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Harburger TB[edit]

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

Has been tagged for months for improvement without any. Currently there is a single decent source from an independent, reliable, secondary reference (the Adenblatt article). Was draftified, and returned to mainspace, again without improvement. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments

A search for "harburger tb abendblatt" finds plenty of coverage from the Hamburger Abendblatt. I just added content using an Abendblatt article about the energetic renovation of the club's facilities. (Searching for "Adenblatt" won't get you far.)
Our German article, de:Harburger TB 1865, references three books: 1. Vereinslexikon (Enzyklopädie des deutschen Ligafußballs), 2. Legendäre Fußballvereine and 3. Fußball im Norden. 100 Jahre Norddeutscher Fußball-Verband. Geschichte, Chronik, Namen, Daten, Fakten, Zahlen. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Robby.is.on - I actually happen to have one of the editions of the Vereinslexikon, so I will add thatKatoKungLee (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG. The team competed in Oberliga Nord (1947–1963) (NOTE - Be careful as there was another Oberliga Nord which was the 4th division) in 1949-1954, which was the top division in the north of Germany as there was no national league yet. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability rules state: Teams that have played in the national cup (or the national tier(s) of the league structure in countries where no cup exists or in the countries whose national cup does not include all teams who play in the national league(s)) generally meet WP:GNG criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria. The Vereinlexikon book that I used is an independent book source, as is the Fußball-Lexikon book source I used, as is the Fußball-Oberliga Hamburg source I used, along with the various Adenblatt articles I'm going through now.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@KatoKungLee Just a pointer, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline. I.e. it is not an official Wikipedia rule, it is merely an essay that contains the advice and/or opinions of the Football WikiProject. It even states that teams are required to meet the general notability guideline. Alvaldi (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep passes GNG per KatoKungLee. And I can 100% guarantee that a team that played years in the top level of German soccer will have further WP:OFFLINE coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Please see the updated references. There's possibly thousands that I didn't go into from the Hamburger Abenblatt - https://www.abendblatt.de/suche/?q=%22Harburger+TB%22&sort=neu&p=4 KatoKungLee (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per updated sourcing. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep If the nominator had done his homework he would notice the rather older de:Harburger TB 1865 article, which passes GNG and would have known this shouldn't need to goto AfD what so ever. It's just as easy to goto WT:FOOTBALL and ask questions about articles, ask someone to improve them rather than just hoping someone will review the provide sources list which a lot of editors don't do. Issues have been addressed by going to AfD, but was that really necessary? Govvy (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Govvy - My concerns on the German article (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harburger_TB_1865) are Source #1 is a primary source, so it can't be used on its own. Source #2 - I don't have this book, so I really don't know what's inside of it. Additionally, I don't know if I can get in touch with someone who has it to use as a reference and I really hate to bug people to do stuff like that. I actually bought Source #3 but I also knew of the general format and what was inside, so there was no risk on the purchase. Source #4 is a broken URL and does not work, so it can't be used. I don't own nor can I see Source #5, so I also can't use that and would need to contact someone. For Source #6, I believe it could be written off as a database entry, though I would have been fine with using it. Personally, I felt my original sources were superior to those, but we're here. I would have hoped if anyone saw those German sources and knew they could have been used, they would have used them. I wish I could say that I believe my article can stay in its current state, but I've gotten various calls wrong here so I'm not a good judge. I honestly had no idea about various German newspapers until it was mentioned here. I didn't know how to get a newspapers account nor did I know of Google Books until recently here. But I have them now, so all is well that ends well. KatoKungLee (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KatoKungLee: Try Source #4-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, yes, since the editor refused to improve the article until it went to AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep -article has improved. Thesixserra (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per above reasons. Giant Snowman 09:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Granville, Jamaica. Star Mississippi 02:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Granville Primary Jamaica[edit]

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

Was deleted through prod, and restored through prod objection. However, still a non-notable primary school. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Jamaica. Shellwood (talk) 10:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm finding some coverage for it under its proper name, Granville Primary School. If it's not independently notable it should be merged to Granville, Jamaica. It has a substantial history and significant faculty and alumni. Historic. This will be my only comment due to an editing restriction imposed on me. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete No sigcov, I can only find passing mentions in media such as this, where the school was one of seven which received a donation from the Usain Bolt Foundation. I object to merging it to Granville, Jamaica, as I see no evidence that it "has a substantial history and significant faculty and alumni" or why this one local school in particular should be privledged over the several schools which exist in that community on the community article. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Since this was nominated, 4 sources have been added, so in better condition than preprod. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Granville, Jamaica. Fails GNG and ORG. Sources are primary, mention, and routine news. // Timothy :: talk 01:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Article's title was moved from Granville Primary Jamaica to Granville Primary School, so the subject of this discussion is now a redirect. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator and redirected to Henry the Lion. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Henry XII[edit]

Withdrawn by nominator

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

No mention of "XII" in the article on Henry the Lion, no links to Henry XII, Count of Schwarzburg-Blankenburg (who is a red link in German wiki). Nothing to disambiguate PamD 09:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Henry the Lion, who appears to be sometimes referred to as Henry XII: Britannica, British Museum. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Withdraw, and Redirect: now that Presidentman has added the sourced HXII to Henry the Lion, a redirect there is the solution and I have boldly done so. PamD 19:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinaki Chaudhuri[edit]

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

This article does not meet any of the following standards of notability. Khorang 22:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Khorang 22:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment there is a claim of notability here: “ He was awarded with two National Awards for the Best Feature Film in Bengali, first one in 1996 for Shonghaath and again in 2007 for Ballygunge Court. Chowdhury was honoured as Jury Member in various Film Festivals and was the Chairman of the Jury Board for selection of Indian films for National Awards”. That’s unsourced but I don’t think we should delete unless a Bengali-speaker confirms a lack of sources to support it. Mccapra (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep (leaning) Not a language expert but this is what I found:
This appears to confirm the two national awards [55] (will add to article)

bn.wikipedia has an article but little information and no refs, I expected more. Articles exist elsewhere, but I don't think they will have sources.

They have a lot of obits. All the normal issues with Obits, but the number combined with the above awards makes a case more is out there.

I searched পিনাকী চৌধুরী and found enough on the first couple pages to make me believe there is more out there.
If a language expert articulates how my assessment is off, I'd probably yield to their opinion. // Timothy :: talk 02:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 08:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Claude Boucher (diplomat)[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No coverage to meet WP:BIO. Also a failed political candidate. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: This was the only independent reliable source I could find. — SamX [talk · contribs] 02:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Haiti. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 08:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is consensus that WP:ORG is not met and, so, I ordinarily would close this AfD as delete; however, for the sake of efficiency, since the IP editor has asked for time to improve the article, I'm closing this as draftify, to allow him to work on the page in draft space. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

International Institute of Business Analysis[edit]

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

I am unable to find WP:ORG level coverage of this professional association. There's a lot of noise-but it's press releases and other churnalism. Star Mississippi 23:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and Canada. Star Mississippi 23:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 08:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete while I do see a few media mentions that are more than just press releases (of which apparently they released many, such as in https://www.dice.com/career-advice/business-analyst-certifications-tips-for-earning-your-first-ones and in https://fortune.com/education/careers/how-to-become-a-business-analyst/, I’m not seeing any in-depth coverage in reliable sources that would satisfy Wikipedia:ORG. Jo7hs2 (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:ORG. The only independent source is the itbusiness.ca ref which is no longer published. It is available via archive but is only a passing mention of this organization. Locu (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I represent this organization and it has come to my attention that this page has not been maintained/updated. Please allow for time for changes to be presented before deleted. More sources meeting WP:ORG will be reviewed and added, including sources aggregated at [56] and [57]. A new organization definition summary and supporting information will be suggested for review as well. 2600:8806:9097:7400:2121:5775:31AA:BF29 (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Samuele Conti[edit]

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

Not sure Conti meets WP:BIO. The subject clearly does not pass WP:NCYC; and a search for sources on Google at least did not turn up any significant coverage for Conti; mostly passing mentions in the context of drug suspensions, and a couple of articles briefly discussing Conti's suspension, which is run-of-the-mill coverage which does not go into much depth about him. There's of course the caveat that offline sources may exist, which I may be unable to access; but given that Conti's achievements do not seem to be particularly noteworthy, I'm not convinced any offline sourcing will be sufficient to get the subject over the WP:BASIC bar. Java Hurricane 07:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and Italy. Java Hurricane 07:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I'm only seeing one SIGCOV source which covers his drug-related suspension; this really isn't enough to meet GNG or write a fleshed-out article. –dlthewave ☎ 20:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete without prejudice should he become more notable. As is, he's famous for one event which was found not to have happened. Cabayi (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Intelligent transportation system. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Intelligent vehicle technologies[edit]

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

This is an unsourced article about a concept. The article creator and a blocked user had a connection to the company (WP:COI). I performed some "External links" maintenance [58] May 1, 2015. Otr500 (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Additional information. After the "External links" maintenance work I addressed article WP:sourcing and WP:notability issues (Talk:Intelligent_vehicle_technologies#Article_problems, 16 May 2015). I couldn't find anything significant and nothing has changed (notability and references) since then. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Transportation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to intelligent transportation system. With no sources at all and an existing (well-sourced) article about virtually the same topic, I see no reason for us to keep this. Potentially merge any salvageable content. PopoDameron ⁠talk 03:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect Agree with PopoDameron. The article is unsourced itself, but merging and saying a bit about it in the transport article could be useful. Lewcm (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saccharopolyspora salina[edit]

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

https://lpsn.dsmz.de/species/saccharopolyspora-salina States this is not validly published. This is likely because this comes from a predatory journal doi:10.3844/ajidsp.2009.90.98 Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete This is the authoritative list for that very question and we ought to abide by it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The journal being predatory has nothing to do with why this purported species isn't considered validly published. Nominator should know this by now since they participated in a previous discussion about that issue (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive_51#Nomenclatural acts published in "predatory journals"). The venue of publication is a problem, but not because it's predatory. Bacteria names can only be validly published in a single journal, the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. There are several other requirements for valid publication which haven't been met by the paper in question (it can be seen here); there is no formal statement that a new species is being named, there isn't a description that differentiates it from previously described species, and there is no indication that the requirement to deposit type strains in institutions in two different countries was met. In fact, it looks like the authors think that the species was previously described elsewhere: "A BLAST search of the 1273 bp 16S-rRNA gene sequence of the isolate showed 100% homology to Saccharopolyspora salina. The phylogenetic tree was constructed based on neighbor joining method shows that the isolate is most closely related to Saccharopolyspora salina" The sentences I've quoted don't make any sense unless there are previously published (perhaps in a database) gene sequences attributed to Saccharopolyspora salina. Maybe LPSN has a mistake about the publication where this name first appeared? But I'm not finding anything earlier. I'm not a molecular biologist, so I'm not very familiar with BLAST searches, but searching BLAST for Saccharopolyspora salina returns a record with ID 453831. Searching the NCBI taxonomy browser for Saccharopolyspora salina (which should be using the same IDs as BLAST) returns a record for Saccharopolyspora qijiaojingensis, with ID 453831 and no mention of salina. Plantdrew (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete in this case, as the purported publication fails to meet the requirements for valid publication on many fronts. Valid publication is required by the logic of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES, so that is not a good argument to keep. However, deleting all articles on bacteria solely on the grounds of not being validly published is not a good idea; Bacteria itself isn't validly published. Plantdrew (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Avi Schiffmann[edit]

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

The individual allegedly created a project that was popular during the coronavirus pandemic, but the coverage is not significant enough to warrant the creation of a Wikipedia page. There is one award, but I'm not too certain about the signficance of the award. Seems to fail WP:GNG requirements. Qx.est (Suufi) ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qx.est (Suufi) ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Notable guy. New refs need to be added tho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CassiJevenn (talk • contribs) 12:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you elaborate on his notability? I see that you've contributed to the page in the past. A good chunk of the sources when you Google the individual (including WWF, MIT Technology Review, and the New Yorker) about him seem to be written by him or largely quotes from him which does not present significant and independent coverage. Qx.est (Suufi) ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The guy has been featured in La Voix Du Nord (1), BFMTV (2), The Times Of Israel (3), Le Figaro (4), Web Foundation (5), CNEWS (6), Business Insider (7), The Times UK (8), Vanity Fair (9), ABC ES (10) and recently, in CNN (11)... the list goes beyond... I don't know how you can doubt he is still not notable ^^ CassiJevenn (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've attached a source assessment table below. Some of the sources you listed are on the table, and the rest have the same issues. I suspect some level of churnalism is involved, if not the individual or someone close to them reaching out to media sources. The development of a popular website is not enough to warrant the creation of a Wikipedia page. Many creators of popular websites do not receive a Wikipedia page. Qx.est (Suufi) ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you include the CNN page in the table? That recent one is very clearly not churnalism. Furthermore, Avi is not just a creator of one popular website. In the CNN article (which, for some reason, you don't include in the table), you can see all about his company and new office in SF, multiple websites created for Syria, Turkey, Ukraine, and other areas in crisis. Pretty much all the sources you use in your table are very old. There are new sources that establish notability. CraigSut (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The source assessment table generated below are from the currently posted article, not the sources listed above. That is why CNN is not included. The creation of a website or multiple does not convey notability, neither does the coverage of them. If you would like to generate your own table, please feel free. The sources I'm seeing for Schiffmann's work (including InternetActivism) tend to largely consist of direct and indirect quotes from him which isn't significant coverage. Qx.est (Suufi) ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then don't suggest a deletion of the page. The CNN article indicates notability for Schiffmann. Instead, add issue templates about sourcing, etc. — not about notability. As CassiJevenn said above, "new refs need to be added tho" and "I don't know how you can doubt he is still not notable." CraigSut (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2193300/8-17-year-old-creates-worlds-biggest-online-coronavirus-tracker/		? unsigned, churnalism?	mostly quotes	✘ No
https://www.essentiallysports.com/teenage-gamer-turns-down-8-million-for-coronavirus-tracking-website/		? moot	mostly indirect quotes	✘ No
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/03/30/the-high-schooler-who-became-a-covid-19-watchdog			majority quotes	✘ No
https://www.timesofisrael.com/updated-every-minute-17-year-old-whiz-kids-coronavirus-site-used-by-millions/			mostly quotes and filler	✘ No
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/avi-schiffmann-interview-the-teenage-tech-genius-who-built-a-coronavirus-tracking-website-78rvd093v			moot	✘ No
https://www.geekwire.com/2020/viral-sensation-seattle-kid-built-coronavirus-website-catches-eye-top-twitter-tastemaker/			? moot	? Unknown
https://www.webbyawards.com/press/press-releases/winners-announced-for-the-24th-annual-webby-awards/	awarding organization			✘ No
https://harvardindependent.com/2021/12/student-spotlights-avi-schiffman/	Student spotlight at Harvard, where Avi attends	?		✘ 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 suspect there may be some level of churnalism involved here as well. Qx.est (Suufi) ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete based on the source table above, it's much ado about nothing. I can't find anything else to support notability, it seems pretty clear to me. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom and Oaktree. Obvious lack of notability and fails WP:GNG. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 05:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Papaya Global[edit]

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

Not meeting CORP. all sources are funding announcements or PR pieces. They are briefly mentioned in various articles such as [59], but they don't have significant coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. It appears to be a big company making a lot of money, but the sources are mostly PR. Unless new sources can be found, this company does not appear to be notable enough. JoseJan89 (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, this company is not notable. There are many Israeli software companies and this company isn't one of them. Benbaruch (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DeleteOfir michael (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Eladkarmel (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Viki.coo (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Notable and well-sourced to Globes, Haaretz, Business Insider, The Marker, all reliable sources that would not waste their time or space on an unworthy company. Moreover, the CEO is a woman, which certainly makes it stand out in the crowd. Do not understand the rush to delete a solid Wikipedia entry.--Geewhiz (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The company got plenty of in-depth coverage in major media outlets, especially in Israel, but also abroad. Tzahy (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. The article subject doesn’t meet WP:NCORP. While there are sources, those sources effectively amount to PR material and do not satisfy WP:INDEPTH or WP:SIGCOV. Shawn Teller (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Meets NCORP per above. Sizable international company. Bought out and incorporated AZIMO that was recently kept in another AfD. While AfDs can be very useful for new companies, this is not the case here. There are additional articles on Hewiki. Delete opinions clearly mischaracterize Israeli newspapers. Where they characterize at all. Much tends to be JUSTAVOTE and should be discounted. gidonb (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references (including those in The haaretz.com, etc) are simply regurgitating information provided by the company and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. It would be helpful if the Keep !voters above identified specific paragraphs/sections within specific sources which they claim meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete As per HighKing's reasoning. MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 03:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ronald Lawruk[edit]

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

Nominating here because my WP:CSD#A7 request was declined. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Failed to find any independent coverage of him in a WP:BEFORE search. Vozul (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Vozul (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Can't find reviews about his book. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 03:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Park Plaza Apartments (Sydney)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG. Could not find significant coverage, there are similarly named buildings in other countries. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Agree with your reasons, not very notable, would do best on the Hurstville, New South Wales article where it is already mentioned. ~With regards, I followed The Username Policy (Message Me) (What I have done on Wikipedia) 03:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. per nom, no evidence of notability. Ajf773 (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 03:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Denika Kassim[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I was able to find coverage in French-language sources, particularly Comorean news sites: [60] [61] [62] [63]. While I can't speak to the quality of specific news outlets in the Comoros, it looks to me like she's notable in her home country. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Sources provided by TheCatalyst31 demonstrate significant coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 20:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
weak Keep due to SIGCOV as demonstrated by TheCatalyst31. --hroest 23:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Comoros at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fadane Hamadi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Not finding anything more than stats and passing mentions in my searches. –dlthewave ☎ 20:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Comoros at the 2020 Summer Olympics per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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