< March 23	March 25 >

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of states of Greater Iran[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is only one source in this article. It mentions only three of the listed states and barely supports that these were located in the loosely-defined "Greater Iran". (The source refers to Iranian Intermezzo, which is not Greater Iran.) This article is almost wholly WP:OR. Aintabli (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, Lists, Central Asia, Middle East, and Iran. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources don't verify the material. Appears to be largely WP:OR. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are no sources for NLIST. I've tried to think of a way this could be reworked to meet WP:CLN/WP:AOAL,but couldn't get past the POV OR everything but the kitchen sink criteria. If there is something that meets AOAL in this, it needs TNT to give it a fresh start. I'm not seeing anything that meet NLIST, so it needs to be an AOAL list. I suppose there could be some creative spliting and merging, but I don't see how this would benefit the targets, still unsourced, and be more work than a fresh start. // Timothy :: talk 18:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- This is a harmless list. As such it does not need sources. it might be called List of former states including Iran. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A large portion of the states listed there were not located in Iran, both within its modern borders and historical definitions. So, such a move would not suit the content. Aintabli (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NLIST. Also, I don’t see WP:CLN or WP:AOAL being workable here. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 23:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Student Badminton Tournament[edit]

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

I tried to find reliable sources about this tournament, but couldn't find any. The current sources are all primary sources and this seems to be a non notable tournament. zoglophie 18:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton and Europe. zoglophie 18:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Here is a mention by the Irish Independent (national newspaper): https://www.independent.ie/regionals/droghedaindependent/sport/other-sports/new-open-event-for-badminton-27129347.html

- A more concrete article by Chronicle Live (regional newspaper), although admittedly it's old: https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/other-sport/great-entry-student-tourney-1613830

- Another one by the Northern Echo (regional newspaper): https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/6994904.city-hosts-badminton-tournament/

- There is also an archived version of a Badminton Ireland (the governing body for badminton in Ireland) page in the external links section of the article but here it as well, although it's also old: https://archive.today/20130117133028/http://www.badmintonireland.com/page/22209/ISBT-2012--Information

Other than that it seems most of the mentions are by the universities hosting it;

University of Twente - https://www.diok.utwente.nl/isbt/

TU Delft - https://unitedshuttles.nl/en/tournament-reports/international-student-badminton-tournament-isbt/

Utrecht University - https://sbhelios.nl/p/13/ISBT%20Utrecht

Maynooth University - https://mulife.ie/club/badminton/events

University of Limerick - https://ulwolves.ie/club/badminton

Imperial College London - https://www.imperialcollegeunion.org/activities/a-to-z/badminton-icsm

IT Sligo - https://www.itsligo.ie/silver-for-it-sligo-at-international-student-badminton-tournament/

I gave up search for others at this point, but there are probably other universities who mention it.

The sources are sparse, but I think they're enough to merit the page staying up, particularly since the tournament is still running. Adangis (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG, EVENT, NSPORTS. Unsourced. I looked at the above sources and found:

Strike all the university pages above, they are involved, promo, stats, not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.
Badminton Ireland source is stats, database style page with information supplied by University of Limerick. Not IS RS with SIGCOV
[1] Adangis is correct when they call this a mention, it is not SIGCOV, it is a single sentence mention in an article about a completely different event.
[2] is the most substantial, but it is promo.
[3] stats, database style page with information supplied by University of Limerick. Not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.
[4] is an event registration page.

Nothing above is IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. It doesn't matter how many database entries, promo articles, and sources from participants are found in a google search, it will not show notability, only IS RS with SIGCOV will show notability. // Timothy :: talk 18:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SPORTSEVENT based on Timothy's excellent analysis above. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On my own independent review and analysis, I don’t see this article subject meeting WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:NSPORTS, WP:EVENT, and WP:GNG. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 23:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one music downloads of 2010 (Canada)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a component chart of the Canadian Hot 100 with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Lists for this chart do not meet WP:NLIST. Heartfox (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTSTATS, there's an awful lot of primary source data out there about different music charts in different countries, and we don't need to copy it like this. When you're just giving the number 1s, it gets pretty duplicative with low marginal value: the 2014 list is naturally quite similar to List of Canadian Hot 100 number-one singles of 2014! Reywas92^Talk 15:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some years might be similar but others might show some differences. Maybe a merge could be a compromise. --Sd-100 (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has been through 2 previous AFDs that closed as No Consensus so I don't believe Soft Deletion is a possibility. So, I'm relisting this discussion to see if we can get more participation that can lead to a decisive closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Addressing the earlier suggestion of a merge... Merge to what? I'm not sure there's a viable target article. Joyous! Noise! 17:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merging it with the Canadian Hot 100. I think it might be worth and since it's also published by Billboard magazine, it might be credible enough. Sd-100 (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: fails NLIST, NOTSTATS. Wikipedia is not a collection of every imaginable list. // Timothy :: talk 18:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NLIST. You'll never see significant coverage of this topic outside primary sources. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well as a old saying said "one man's trash is another man's treasure". I guess it might be a treasure for some forks of Wikipedia. Sd-100 (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NLIST and WP:NOTSTATS. Suonii180 (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from failing WP:NLIST, this is a perfect example of WP:NOTSTATS. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Capriccioso[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Found his article looking for sources of criticism of Jacqueline Keeler, who is a controversial figure in American Indian communities. Couldn't find independent sources for him, though I could be looking in the wrong places. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to note that although the citations given are generally reliable and accurate, they mostly focus on who he interviewed and what he wrote for rather than what he did himself, which makes me inclined to believe he doesn't meet notability guidelines. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 21:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Noted journalist who has won several awards. There are already numerous citations specifically about him, but I added some more about awards he has won. Yuchitown (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’ve considered both Wikipedia:GNG and Wikipedia:JOURNALIST and he appears to be notable. He was a bureau chief for one news outlet sufficiently notable to be on WP, Indian Country Today. He was a senior editor for another outlet sufficiently notable to be on WP, Tribal Business News. He was apparently “the first Native American journalist to Q&A a sitting president, President Barack Obama, in an Oct. 4, 2012 news story titled, "President Obama Answers Questions From Indian Country Today Media Network in Unprecedented Exchange."” He has interviewed various notable persons. He has over 100 news hits in Google News. He’s been mentioned in books (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Rob+Capriccioso%22&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjsk7KS5PX9AhWakIkEHRWkBYUQ0pQJegQIBxAM&biw=1182&bih=714&dpr=2) and has a significant number of cites in Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Rob+Capriccioso%22). He has been published in Smithsonian Magazine (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/treaties-governed-us-indian-relationships-180952443/). I am seeing sufficient evidence to establish notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Awards, appearances, achievements in generally underserved press area are notable. Nativerocks (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not enamored of the sources; there's a lot of unreliable source, a lot of non-independent sources, and a lot of passing mentions. this is the most detailed source I could find, but it's by his employer, and is not independent. However, I think there's a claim to meeting NJOURNALIST#1; he is cited surprisingly often in google scholar for a journalist, and based on some searches I'm fairly certain what's visible there is an undercount; he also appears to have been interviewed as a subject expert by NPR on several occasions. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ultima Sports as an WP:ATD; those arguing that the sources demonstrate the notability of the cars rather than Richard Marlow's have policy on their side $Salvio giuliano$ 08:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Marlow (producer)[edit]

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

Unremarkable petrolhead. Allreferences are to the grotesque products of his company. TheLongTone (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the nominator regarding article refs which were not good earlier. So, have updated the article with more refs. The subject has made a remarkable presence back in 2006 so it was quite hard to found archieved refs. The refs shows all racing records and online presence captured by the subject. The article is in pretty good shape now. Jadestrend (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Current updated article version demonstrates notability. Article meets WP:BASIC. Ambrosiawater (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources demonstrate the notablity of the 'cars', not the man.TheLongTone (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ultima Sports as ATD. I agree that the current sourcing shows the notability of the car, but not enough in-depth coverage of the individual.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article does survive, it most certainly should be renamed, I suggest to ~~missile~~ car manufacturer. I think the word producer means a theatre, film or music producer to most people.TheLongTone (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to @TheLongTone:: Your noms and comments need to remain neutral and omit POV commentary. // Timothy :: talk 18:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I think 'supercars' are imbecilic has nothing to do with my putting this article up for deletion. I think football is entirey unworthy of notice but have never put any footballers or teams up for deletion. TheLongTone (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ultima Sports as ATD. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. This article has nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 18:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ultima Sports where the subject is mentioned. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Futsal records in Indonesia[edit]

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

Nothing here that doesn't fail WP:NOTSTATS, barely cited WP:TRIVIA. Can't see anything that couldn't be included in Indonesia Pro Futsal League, which already has far too much trivia. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:TRIVIA- nothing worth salvaging for a merge in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poorly sourced list of stats, no content worth retaining Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article subject doesn’t meet WP:GNG. Article is also a case of WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Couples Therapy (2019 TV series). ✗plicit 00:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orna Guralnik[edit]

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

Per 180.150.37.213 on WT:AFD: Lacks in-depth coverage that is independent of Couples Therapy (2019 TV series). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Psychology, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and merge) to Couples Therapy (2019 TV series) seems like an obvious alternative to deletion here. Someone should check her citation count just in case, but I don't know how to do that. Jahaza (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) in my humble opinion - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but why not redirect to Couples Therapy (2019 TV series), which covers her? Jahaza (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Couples Therapy (2019 TV series) is my second choice I’m totally fine with as well. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair I get that there is not much content separate from the TV show - would be nice to merge the two if possible GucciLucy (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge any material material that can be properly sourced to Couples Therapy (2019 TV series), Fails GNG and BIO. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. // Timothy :: talk 18:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Couples Therapy (2019 TV series) as an ATD. Subject does not seem notable enough for a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 22:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ridi Corporation[edit]

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

Per 180.150.37.213 on WT:AFD: Article sources don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH requirements. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and CORP. No SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Sources in article are primary, article is prmotional. // Timothy :: talk 13:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[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. None of the references I can locate meet the criteria, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient WP:SIGCOV by WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. WP:CORP and WP:CORPDETH are also not met. Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Athletics at the 2019 European Games. $Salvio giuliano$ 22:56, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics at the 2019 European Games – Men's 100 metres[edit]

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

While this may look like a "real" event at major championships, this basically were the qualifications for something called "Dynamic New Athletics", with further rounds run but somehow not included (e.g. Smelyk won the final in 10.44, and Nascimento won his semi-final in 10.26). These weren't the Olympic Championships but an overall country-vs-country event where the individual distances or events were of only minor importance. Fram (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Europe. Fram (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You nominate the page for not understanding the case or it actually failing GNG? If the second reason, you should nominate other events aswell. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination is for being a GNG-missing, incomplete page about a minor subevent which is part of a minor event itself. Athletics at the 2019 European Games is notable, this not so much. It may well be that we have other articles with the same issues, but there is no requirement at all that an AfD nominator groups all similar articles instead of nominating one of them. Fram (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you suggest the page is missing some information, that's not a reason for deletion. Looking at how Italian Wikipedia has made the page (it:Atletica leggera ai II Giochi europei - 100 metri piani maschili), all that can be included too. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I draftified it arguing (among other things) that it was incomplete, you seemed to reject this then and here at the AfD. The tournament has probably the most weird formatI have ever seen, with the move from qualification to QF, SF and F not based on the results in the previous rounds at all? E.g. Nascimento was fastest in Q, but still had to run the QF for the 18 slowest athletes. And after he was the fastest in the SF, he wasn't among the finalists? A completely baffling format which needs a thorough explanation if our intention is to actually inform readers, not to leave them none the wiser after having read the page. Fram (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  You just need to understand the point of DNA (Dynamic New Athletics). dna.run [5] [6] Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I do understand it. Like I said, it's a country-v-country event. Which doesn't explain why we would want articles on the individual results of he preliminary stage of sub-events, just because the organisers decided to give out medals at this point. The second link you give shows that the organisers don't really understand it either. "For the first time ever, the DNA of athletics -- running, jumping and throwing – will take place in the same event. " Never heard of the decathlon / heptathlon / pentathlon apparently? Or, if you want it across multiple athletes, something like the European Champion Clubs Cup (athletics)? Anyway, the overall event is notable, the DNA results should have a page, but the individual subevents? They seem of very limited individual importance. Fram (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine them stopping the competition after only 1st run and the athletes receiving medals. That would be okay right. But if somekind of competition goes on after it, it is not? There are several competitions that give out medals for individual athletes, and another set of medals for teams after combining their results. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the event was real, with real medals being awarded as part of the 2019 European Games. Event can also serve as qualifying stage for something else (e.g European Championships may serve as a qualification for the Olympics), it does not automatically suggest the first competition is not notable. "Dynamic New Athletics" was the format of Athletics at the 2019 European Games. So it meant they award medals at every individual events first (with all nations competing). The 'DNA' style competition was a team event (unfortunately hasn't been created yet). You are more than welcome to create the page and add your mentioned results there. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There rarely are medals for qualifications when the next stages are at the same venue in the next days though. This was just a minor first stage of a smallish event (not really the best European athletes by far) which was held on a country-v-country basis, i.e. where the individual results were not really important. No one argued that the event wasn't real, only that the importance of medals for being first in the qualifications of this event is minimal, and that the page does a very bad job at describing the actual event, even omissing the quarterfinals, semifinals and finals, even though they were included in the very same primary source[7]. I already said this when I draftified it (see article talk page), but to no avail. We don't have the best times ran at this event, we don't have the final results, and apparently this is deliberate. Fram (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athletics at the 2019 European Games without prejudice to spinning out if there is something to actually say about it. No content other than results and statistics; Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - just because an event happened does not make it notable. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment - lets try one more relist as the last vote really came on the last second. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main article Athletics at the 2019 European Games. No indication that this event was independently notable. Nigej (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article Athletics at the 2019 European Games. Per above, no indication that this event was independently notable. In this case there is no reason to fragment the content from the main article. // Timothy :: talk 13:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Comoros at the 2004 Summer Olympics. There is consensus (in terms of both numbers and strength of argument) that Djaffar isn't notable, and there's been no explicit opposition to redirecting as an alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hadhari Djaffar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'd think 3-time Olympian, multiple national record holder and Olympic flag bearer would passe GNG. Should expect offline sources, their local (including Arabic) newspapers. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Holding a national record for a tiny island nation in the Indian Ocean is not an independent basis for notability. Nor is mere participation in the Olympics. WP:SPORTBASIC provides: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Cbl62 (talk) 14:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic or French... Strange that there's no Arabic Wiki or French Wiki article for him. I take exception to the "tiny island nation" comment, I'd rather Keep because it's a nation, but if no one actually finds more sources I'm sure he'll be nominated for deletion again. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidLeeLambert:: Not sure why "tiny island nation" is objectionable. Comoros has a total of only 719 sq mi of total land area on three islands, slightly smaller than the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, another geographically tiny nation state. Did I miss something? Has the word "tiny" become offensive? Would "very small" be more acceptable? Also, do you have an actual policy-based reason for your "keep" vote? Cbl62 (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia's well-known systemic bias against places like Comoros is evident in this and other recent nominations. If a multiple Olympian and national record-holding track and field star from an African country isn't considered notable because online, largely western sources haven't covered them, that is not a good reason to erase their biography. It should be a call to action to fix the guidelines (which is what they are) and to re-evaluate Wikipedia as a project.--User:Namiba 15:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... or, alternatively, it could be a call to action to search for off-line sources to support the article. Cbl62 (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Though, to do that, whatever user wanting to save this article would have to learn a new language, spend thousands to fly to Comoros, and search their library archives, all in a week. I'd say re-evaluating the notability guidelines would be a better idea. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:Bias - It's Comoros, which has its own language that none of us know. They aren't going to have national newspapers archived online for us and none of us live there. I'd be shocked if we even had a couple of regular contributors from Comoros. Beyond that, he's an olympian and a multi-time record holder in his country.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KatoKungLee: I disagree, this person would not be notable no matter their country of origin; a US or European athlete also has to pass WP:NTRACK and WP:GNG. --hroest 23:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors are certainly welcome to propose changes to our notability guidelines in the appropriate forums, but until then there's global consensus that this article "must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NTRACK, it seems they never finished in the top 8 as required by guidelines. Applying objective guidelines to all athletes independent of country of origin is not WP:BIAS, but rather the opposite. --hroest 20:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, BIO, NSPORTS. Sources in article are not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS, only blogs, stats, db entries. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. // Timothy :: talk 22:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment no objection to a redirect to Comoros at the 2004 Summer Olympics per below but only after delete of BLP. // Timothy :: talk 13:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability requires actual proof that SIGCOV sources exist, not just the assertion that they're probably out there, and right now we have no coverage whatsoever aside from a statistics page. –dlthewave ☎ 01:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Comoros at the 2004 Summer Olympics (because he was flagbearer in that year) with remaining information, incl the ~~other two~~ 2000 Olympics which he also took part in, in a footnote. Ingratis (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

already merged, actually. Ingratis (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Comoros at the 2004 Summer Olympics, where he is mentioned. No reason to merge any material. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Comoros newspaper covering the person [8], that's about it. Oaktree b (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a brief mention falling below the level of what is needed to qualify as WP:SIGCOV or to satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Cbl62 (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Comoros at the 2004 Summer Olympics, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) The person who loves reading (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie Priceman[edit]

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

No references are listed. The person who loves reading (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The person who loves reading (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources do exist, here's one I found in a few moments. Here is a PDF from the American Library Association which lists her Caldecott Honor awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patr2016 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a difference between "no references listed" and "there are no references available". @The person who loves reading:, did you follow WP:BEFORE? I just did a very quick 10-second check and this New York Times article was right there, along with this one.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isuobiangwu[edit]

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

I did a search and it does not seem to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator thanks for improving Chidgk1 (talk) 13:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:NPLACE, populated and legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. This is, from Googling, a populated designated village and meets the requirements. Nomader (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Legally recognized? Perhaps someone who knows more about Nigeria than I do can comment whether it is notable due to the cargo airport. Isn’t it part of the city rather than a village? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further searches seem to make the case that WP:COMMONNAME here might just be Obiangwu, and that "Isu" refers to Isu, Nigeria? Could really use someone who's actually familiar with the local geography and political geographic rules here. Sources are much more common for it (and a google maps search shows that both overlap according to their GIS, although take those particular results with a grain of salt). Either way, this !vote still stands per WP:NPLACE. [9] Nomader (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing to show this place meets WP:GEOLAND.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look again... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep Non-notable superstub, nothing to prove importance. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed opinion per improvements of article. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GEOLAND points this to GNG, and this fails GNG. Sources found include database records, and routine (although horrible) news stories. I couldn't identify a good redirect target, but no objection if consensus emerges. // Timothy :: talk 14:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obiangwu is more common and it's a legally recognized place with churches and schools. In Nigerian national news currently with a shooting incident at the market. QuicoleJR and TimothyBlue you might want to reconsider..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the article survives this AfD, it would be eligible for DYK. Just some food for thought. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator thanks for improving Chidgk1 (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tribes of Dersim[edit]

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

This looks like a WP:CFORK. The Kurdish tribes of Dersim are already listed in Kurdish tribes#Tunceli Province. The content isn't much for a separate article; it could additionally be integrated into Tunceli Province#Demographics. There are only two sources, and none of them are good. One is a web article so could pass as non-WP:RS. The given link, which is the second source, leads to an article unrelated to the one titled "Başköylü Hasan Efendi" as in the citation. Aintabli (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Aintabli (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing unites these tribes beside being present in Tunceli province and adjacent areas. Semsûrî (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: OR article subject, no sources for GNG or NGEO. // Timothy :: talk 14:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Juncaj[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Of the sources in the article, [10],[11][12] are WP:PRIMARY sources, [13][14][15][16] are trivial mentions, [17] is a blog, [18] is PRIMARY with just quotes from the subject, [19] is a match report, [20] is a routine transfer report, [21] is a database source and [22] looks like a automatic compilation from a database that is part of massive amount of similar articles on the same site[23]. I was unable to find better sources during a search. Alvaldi (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Alvaldi (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], and [29] among more sources, all go into his background. Young player with ongoing career in fully pro Slovenian top flight (already 2+ games), which also receives coverage. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Das osmnezz These are the same sources as I covered above. [30] is a WP:PRIMARY source from the Football Association of Slovenia, [31] is a primary source from the National Premier Soccer League, [32] is a blog (from about Duchy of Taco is my eclectic personal blog project), [33] is a routine transfer report, [34] trivially mentions him as the son of George Juncaj, [35] has a trivial mention of him. Playing in a notable league does not make you notable as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Being young with an ongoing professional career does not make you notable per WP:NSPORTS. Getting only mentions in primary sources or trivial mentions in secondary sources does not make you notable per WP:GNG. All this you know very well, yet you continue to use the same faulty arguments and post the same low level of sources in every other football AfD there is. Alvaldi (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, navijaskacona.si and npsl.com aren't PRIMARY sources since they aren't his direct employers, ie the clubs. Passes GNG IMO with significant coverage, although page could probably spruced up like any other.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, a league that has a direct interest in promoting teams and players within its ranks is never, ever an independent source. Alvaldi (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Alvaldi gives a very thorough summary of the source deficiencies, including the obvious fact that governing sports orgs are not independent of players. And as always, Das osmnezz's refbombing with useless links is disruptive. JoelleJay (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of non-primary sources to justify WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the two Detroit News sources have slightly more than trivial mentions but are probably borderline WP:SIGCOV at best (and as they are from the same publication would only count as a single source for the purposes of WP:GNG). Everything else appears to be trivial mentions, providing more coverage of Juncaj's father, or WP:PRIMARY sources. Frank Anchor 14:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; the only independent, reliable sources are trivial/routine coverage like the signing announcement from sio1.net. There is simply no in-depth coverage available online. Jogurney (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's source eval. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. // Timothy :: talk 14:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Montenegro and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anıl Ulaş Övençoğlu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. UtherSRG (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, and Turkey. UtherSRG (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Haberler is considered to be unreliable on the Turkish Wikipedia, especially for biographies. The Haber7 source is just plain gossip that doesn't even verify the statement it's used for. This one is about him receiving a non-notable award which 156 people got at the same time, and very suspiciously he is the only one that got a newspaper article written about it. There is this source from Posta, but that very clearly says that it's an advertisement (the "İlandır" at the very bottom). Very likely that the sources are paid-for, so I don't see any reliable, independent and significant coverage, thus this person fails the GNG. ~Styyx^Talk? 22:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - After removing unreliable citations and advertisements the entire article is just 3 sentences long and is useless. After finding all of the problems with this page, the "multiple issues" box contains more words than the entire article itself. BenzoAid (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EVEN THE IMAGE GOT REMOVED. BenzoAid (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the first AfDD did end in soft delete. It was deleted, then restored on the very next day by the same guy who created the page. Interesting. // 💪Benzo💪 (Send me a message!) (Here's what I've contributed.) 11:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted on 23 Mar when the first AFD was closed. It was restored 24 Mar after this request]. ~ GB fan 12:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC):My comment was made when the previous comnment said the article was never deleted after the last afd. ~ GB fan 12:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per above. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. // Timothy :: talk 14:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Myriam Miedzian[edit]

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

Appears promo, not seeing PROF being met. She speaks quite a bit in the media about various issues, plenty of those clips found. Nothing about her as a person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Philosophy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Myriam Miedzian’s “Boys Will Be Boys,” which examined factors in aggression and violence in American males, was a sensation after it was first published in 1991." does suggest WP:NAUTHOR I'm working on the article now and will make more improvements before !vote CT55555(talk) 21:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her first book has attracted academic reviews, news articles and an invite on the Oprah Winfrey show (WP:NAUTHOR pass). Her efforts to get a statue of women in Central Park made news, including as recently as 2019. Other sources about that include SEMMES, A. W. Standing Tall. Greenwich Magazine, [s. l.], v. 69, n. 1, p. 28, 2016. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f6h&AN=111951170&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 17 mar. 2023. I therefore conclude that she passes both NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. CT55555(talk) 21:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An earlier version of this page was deleted about a week ago on an expired PROD. It was apparently recreated manually without REFUND. I wonder if there was any material in the older version that ought to be salvaged. pburka (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet GNG. If the book received coverage, that might warrant an article on that, but she certainly doesn't pass WP:GNG. All the sourcing about her is simple mentions, not in-depth coverage. And this article is in better shape than the one that was deleted through prod last time.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- A search finds articles from Forward, Time Magazine, CNN, La Jolla Light (also see here), Washington Post, Publishers Weekly (book reviews), Gender and Society journal, NASSP Bulletin, Gothamist, The Journal of Psychohistory, Sociology journal, San Diego Union Tribune, WQXR. She has been writer for Jewish Currents, HuffPost, and within Dissent Magazine, Tikkun, LA Times, Baltimore Sun, and Chicago Tribune. She also appeared on Charlie Rose. I would say this is sufficient enough to keep the entry.Historyday01 (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, @Onel5969 now that I have created Boys Will Be Boys (book), could that persuade you that she is the major contributor to a notable work (i.e. a WP:AUTHOR pass)? The book truly is at the high end of the notability/impact spectrum. CT55555(talk) 20:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just because the book passes notability, doesn't make it significant or well-known (which are the qualifiers in NAUTHOR, not simply notable). Gone With the Wind, Cry, the Beloved Country, To Kill a Mockingbird, Moby Dick, all significant. I do not believe that an author who has a single book which passes notability criteria necessarily passes WP:NAUTHOR. If they had multiple notable books, then yes. But you did a fine job on the book article.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment listed here to generate further discussion Lajmmoore (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing a ton of coverage of her and her works spanning years.
Bell, Diane (August 31, 2020). "Women finally break 'bronze ceiling' in Central Park". The Tribune. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.

Morse, Libby (October 6, 1991). "A Philosopher Calls on Men to Abandon Violence". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved March 28, 2023.

Ward, Bruce (August 2, 1992). "Boys and Violence". The Ottawa Citizen. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via ProQuest.

Moore, Chadwick (July 12, 2015). "Fighting to Bring Women in History to Central Park". The New York Times. Retrieved March 28, 2023.

Fernandez, Susan (September 28, 1997). "Glimpsing a century of change". Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.

Karpen, Lynn (November 16, 1997). "GENERATIONS: A Century of Women Speak About Their Lives By Myriam Miedzian and Alisa Malinovich". The New York Times. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via ProQuest.

Fix, Sybil (December 14, 1997). "Women tell their life stories". The Post and Courier. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via ProQuest.

Taplin, Nancy (October 12, 1997). "Voices of Women, Voices of Change". Rocky Mountain News. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via ProQuest.

Halperin, Jennifer (November 9, 1997). "'Generations' Listens To Women's Stories". Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via ProQuest.

Joyce, Alice (September 1, 1997). "Generations: A Century of Women Speak about Their Lives". The Booklist. 94 (1): 41. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via ProQuest.

McEwan, Linda L. (July 1997). "Generations: A Century of Women Speak About Their Lives". Library Journal. 122 (12): 103. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via ProQuest.

Stuttaford, Genevieve; Simson, Maria; Zaleski, Jeff (July 21, 1997). "Generations: A Century of Women Speak about Their Lives". Publishers Weekly. 244 (29): 194. Retrieved March 28, 2023.

Gordon, Suzanne (August 5, 1991). "Seeking root causes of men's violence". The Boston Globe. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.

Ortiz y Pino, Jerry (February 26, 1992). "Man's War on Woman". The Santa Fe Reporter. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.

Panchyk, Dave (September 28, 1991). "Boys Will Be Boys". The Leader-Post. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.

Stern, Gary (October 28, 1993). "Author speaks out against TV, film violence". The Reporter Dispatch. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.

Zilbergeld, Bernie (June 23, 1991). "Is Male Violence Inevitable?". The San Francisco Examiner. pp. 6, 7. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.

Prongos, Peter (August 10, 1991). "Nature or nurture: which triggers male violence?". The Vancouver Sun. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.

Naves, Elaine Kalman (July 27, 1991). "Need men be violent?". Montreal Gazette. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.

Kochner, Curt (October 6, 1991). "Boys are instructed to be violent men". The Billings Gazette. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.

Kilpatrick, James J. (September 25, 1991). "Children's TV: The wrong answer". Arizona Republic. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.

Washuk, Bonnie (May 31, 1992). "Boys will be boys (But they don't have to be violent)". Sun Journal. pp. 1E, 3E. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.

Swan, Rhonda (August 17, 2009). "Take the fun out of rape". Hawaii Tribune-Herald. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.

Harris, Ian M. (November 30, 1992). "Boys Will Be Boys: Breaking the Link Between Masculinity and Violence By Myriam Miedzian". The Journal of Men's Studies. 1 (2): 209. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via ProQuest.

Allwood, Gill (February 1994). "Book reviews -- Boys Will Be Boys: Breaking the Links Between Masculinity and Violence by Myriam Miedzian". Sociology. 28 (1): 367–368. doi:10.1177/00380385940280010. Retrieved March 28, 2023.

Segal, Lynne (January 31, 1992). "Marketing Men". New Statesman & Society. 5 (187): 40. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via ProQuest.

Nicholas, Eugenia M. (April 1992). "Boys Will Be Boys: Breaking the Link Between Masculinity and Violence by Myriam Miedzian". NASSP Bulletin. 76 (543): 121–122. doi:10.1177/019263659207654324. Retrieved March 28, 2023.

Lamb, Lynette (January 1992). "Books Bound for Glory -- Boys Will Be Boys: Breaking the Link Between Masculinity and Violence by Myriam Miedzian". The Utne Reader (49): 120. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via ProQuest.

Kress, Pamela A. (August 1994). "Man as victimizer". Library Journal. 119 (13): 107. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via ProQuest.

Stuttaford, Genevieve (April 19, 1991). "Boys Will Be Boys: How We Encourage Violence in Our Sons and What We Can Do to Stop It by Myriam Miedzian". Publishers Weekly. 238 (18): 52. Retrieved March 28, 2023.

Banas, Mary (May 15, 1991). "Boys Will Be Boys: How We Encourage Violence in Our Sons and What We Can Do to Stop It by Myriam Miedzian". The Booklist. 87 (18): 1763. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via ProQuest.

Greene, Linda S. (June 1, 1991). "Boys Will Be Boys: How We Encourage Violence in Our Sons and What We Can Do to Stop It by Myriam Miedzian". Library Journal. 116 (10): 172. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via ProQuest.

Levy, Daniel S. (September 16, 1991). "Why Johnny Might Grow up Violent and Sexist". Time. Retrieved March 28, 2023.

Raksin, Alex (June 23, 1991). "Nonfiction: Boys Will Be Boys". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 28, 2023.

Ross, Val (August 24, 1991). "Breaking the code". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via ProQuest.

Rummler, Gary C. (July 26, 1992). "3 views: Today's males stir cheers, boos and a caution flag". Milwaukee Journal. Retrieved March 28, 2023 – via ProQuest.

And she had two notable books, it seems, as the Generations one has a fair bit of coverage too. But her Boys Will Be Boys book is very clearly a seminal work that received major focus, discussion, and had impact on later understanding of the topic of masculinity. Also,CT55555, my apologies, but I think I've given you a ton of more work to do on the book article you made. :P Hope what I've got above isn't too onerous. Silver seren^C 01:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. Anyone can improve the book article. You go first. CT55555(talk) 03:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Somewhere up there is enough to pass GNG. Definitely more notable than most NSPORTS bios. // Timothy :: talk
Comment. Over the years, we've had quite a few authors and artists brought to AfD on the basis that they've only produced one notable work. This is wikilawyering and is a waste of time. If the notable work already has an article, then, instead of deletion, initiate a discussion to merge the author's page into the page about their work. If the notable work doesn't already have an article, then move (or propose moving) the creator's page to their creation and do some light editing to change the focus. In either case, the problems are WP:SURMOUNTABLE and deletion doesn't improve the encyclopedia. pburka (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with the spirit of the comment about, I want to be fair to the delete voters (who I disagree with) and acknowledge that the article was in a poorer state and the notability of her book was not clear at the time of nomination. I created the book article and improved the article since the nomination. At risk of self-congratulation, I think WP:HEY slightly applies here and I urge delete voters to reconsider. CT55555(talk) 15:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD:G2 Joyous! Noise! 18:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sakana's PFPs[edit]

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

Another joke article by this user who should be banned from Wikipedia. Non-notable. ImperialMajority (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD:G2 Joyous! Noise! 18:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sakana's YouTube Channel[edit]

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

I believe the author of this article should be banned. They've created multiple articles such as Sakana's Memes which are complete vandalism. ImperialMajority (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Closed as CSD:G2; Joyous! Noise! 18:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sakana's Memes[edit]

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

Weird article / vandalism. Not funny in the slightest either. I assume the author is a kid. ImperialMajority (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tensilica. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tensilica Instruction Extension[edit]

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

not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tensilica, as was suggested the last time this was nominated for deletion. Some content may be mergeable if sources can be found. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tensilica. This is completely unneeded content fragmenting. Fails GNG and CORP, nothing to merge because nothing is sourced. // Timothy :: talk 15:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jewel Amoah[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable biographical article for an academic. The article is an orphan with very few references. It looks like a CV. I was going to trim it back, but then thought I'd nominate it for deletion. Seaweed (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Sexuality and gender. Spiderone^{to be so(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the link to UWI was dead, but I have found her new post at U Toronto and updated the article. PamD 08:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There seems to be some academic notability which would be exposed if the article was improved. MNewnham (talk)
Weak Keep as per discussion by other users, and links from: Ontario Human Rights Commission, University of Toronto, voicEd Radio Canada, The Centre for Human Rights and Rehabilitation, University of the West Indies, Ontario Government, Judicial Education Institute, Muslim Advisory Council of Canada, Eyewitness News, The Bahamas Weekly, FM101 Milton Now, Brampton Guardian, book entitled Branches of Asanteism by Abdul Karim Bangura, Reckoning with Racism: Police, Judges, and the RDS Case, along with writings in Feminist Constitutionalism: Global Perspectives.Historyday01 (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (barely) per above refs, there seems to be some academic notability Jewel Amoah#Works and subject appears to squeak by GNG. I rm some unsourced material since this is a BLP and tagged some items. In addition I think subject would pass something in NSPORTS. // Timothy :: talk 16:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. $Salvio giuliano$ 23:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Padarath[edit]

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

I don't think the subject of this article meets WP:NCRIME. They weren't elected, so they wouldn't meet the SNG for NPOL. I haven't seen anything in my BEFORE that would indicate adequate WP:GNG coverage that could be used to write a more typical biography. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Politics, and Oceania. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, NCRIME, and BIO. BIO1E where most of the article is unsourced. BEFORE showed routine local news, nothing that meets SIGCOV. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. // Timothy :: talk 16:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. $Salvio giuliano$ 23:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Monaghan[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Fails WP:NACTOR; no significant roles in multiple notable works nor claim of significant contribution to field.

Google search throws up more results for profiles/agency bios etc than it does for credits – is this an indicator of lack of notability? </rhetoric> MIDI (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of WP:NACTOR notability, can't find any significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Handball at the Goodwill Games[edit]

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

Current sourcing does not pass WP:GNG, has been redirected but reverted without improvement several times, was moved to draft, and returned without improvement, and so we are here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: perfectly valid sub-article of Goodwill Games. "Handball at the Goodwill Games" doesn't need to meet GNG because "Goodwill Games" meets GNG, and putting all the Handball scores on one page makes sense. Alternatively, it could be distributed to 1986 Goodwill Games, 1990 Goodwill Games, and 1994 Goodwill Games, but organizing the scoring tables by sport instead of by year is a valid editorial choice. It's certainly better than having this info at the main Goodwill Games article. Compare Football at the Goodwill Games, Athletics at the Goodwill Games, Swimming at the Goodwill Games, and Figure skating at the Goodwill Games... I don't see a problem with sub-articles organized by sport. Levivich (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Articles like these are basically lists or collections of information. There's no other way to really get this information altogether in one article, hence why we get these types of articles. The Goodwill Games are obviously major notable international events.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Levivich and KatoKungLee. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ see below I'm not a sports editor, and I don't get it. All we have is routine coverage (the news articles), a few primary refs to the organizers, and other primary/self-published refs to random sites. The articles in French, for each of the three editions, still have nothing but primary sources despite having been created years ago. That's not what we want on enWiki. Wikipedia is neither a database, nor a collection of information, and I don't understand why these articles get a pass. If this were any other subject, it'd be an uncontroversial delete. DFlhb (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this were any other subject, I'd probably have !voted "delete" :-) But it's sports. You say you don't get it, so let me try to explain it, using "Athletics" as an example instead of "Handball":
1. Wikipedia articles about sports competitions should include the results of the competitions. Articles about Goodwill Games should say who won what. Hence, 1986 Goodwill Games has a table of medals.
2. Some sporting events, like the Goodwill Games, actually consist of many sports competitions in multiple sports. Listing a table of medals at the 1986 Goodwill Games doesn't tell the reader which sports those medals were for, or which specific competitions. If we listed all the sports and all the competitions, it would make the 1986 Goodwill Games article far too long. So, we split it up into multiple articles. For example, Athletics at the 1986 Goodwill Games gives more information about who won a medal for which athletics event, Gymnastics at the 1986 Goodwill Games does the same for gymnastics events.
3. So we have Athletics at the 1986 Goodwill Games, Athletics at the 1990 Goodwill Games, and Athletics at the 1994 Goodwill Games. I hope you are with me so far that those pages have a place on Wikipedia. That means we could also have pages like Handball at the 1986 Goodwill Games, Handball at the 1990 Goodwill Games, and Handball at the 1994 Goodwill Games.
4. It's perfectly reasonable to merge those three pages, Handball at the 1986 Goodwill Games, Handball at the 1990 Goodwill Games, and Handball at the 1994 Goodwill Games, into one page called Handball at the Goodwill Games. This is how Football at the Goodwill Games handles it. Athletics and gymnastics had many events in each year; handball and football didn't have as many events and so could be merged into one article.
And that's why I !vote keep, even if "Handball at the Goodwill Games" doesn't meet GNG. (Although there is definitely some RS coverage for it, see e.g. GS results). Levivich (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was secretly hoping someone would explain, so thanks :)
Ultimately, I agree that WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't apply, since this is an editorial choice about where to put the tables, and they'd definitely overcrowd the main articles. I thought about similarly splitting out tech specs tables in WP:APPLE articles, and I get the benefit (also, I just realised that WP:NOTSTATS explicitly allows this, so I'll withdraw my vote). I guess I am an inclusionist at heart! DFlhb (talk) 01:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for this limpid explanation ! :-) LeFnake (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Handball. Levivich (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as improved. It's unfortunate that it took this level of dispute to spur the improvement, however. BD2412 T 16:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made, and while I'm aware this is well into "I Like It" territory, it seems useful as a catchall for mergers of non notable moments in Goodwill Games handball events. Star Mississippi 23:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In my opinion the article goes against WP:NOTSTATS for the moment. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it would appear that NOTSTATS allows this. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as necessary spin-out to avoid cluttering the main article. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona Cultural Academy[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years, it's a private high school. It does not seem to have much notability and I don't see even many mentions in RS JMWt (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, United States of America, and Arizona. JMWt (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Islam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that the current state of the article isn't relative to this discussion? Please share the mentions in reliable sources you've found. Thanks 174.212.224.64 (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 16:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found two fairly longform articles in The Arizona Republic from 1999 and 2001, but little else. This is a rare AZ school article that I did not really touch. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools says:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria.
Sources
1. Gunderson, Anna (2012-01-11). "Phoenix's growing Muslim community now has its own school". Ahwatukee Foothills News. Archived from the original on 2023-03-27. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  The article notes: "Arizona Cultural Academy is a private Islamic school near Baseline Road and 42nd Street in Phoenix. The school, one of only three Islamic schools in the state, has about 250 students and educates them on Islamic culture, in addition to traditional school classes. ... ACA is a nonprofit, federal tax-exempt corporation, created in 1996 to further Islamic education. Several years of research went into the location of the Phoenix school before groundbreaking took place on Sept. 1, 2000. The school opened the following year on Aug. 20, 2001, for students in Montessori through eighth grade. Jane Smuts become principal last month. Smuts, a South African immigrant to the United States, is not Muslim."
2. Amparano, Julie (June 28, 1999). "Keeping the roots alive: Special schools put kids in touch with their cultures". Arizona Republic. p. B1, B4. Retrieved March 17, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.
3. Ettenborough, Kelly (May 29, 2001). "Demand for Muslim private schools exceeds availability: Waiting lists grow". Arizona Republic. p. B1, B5. Retrieved March 17, 2023 – via Newspapers.com.
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Ali, Muna (2018). Young Muslim America: Faith, Community, and Belonging. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 40. ISBN 978-0-19-066444-2. Retrieved 2023-03-27 – via Google Books.
    THe book notes: "Likewise, Arizona Cultural Academy (ACA) caters to mostly middle-class immigrants, with scholarships for those of lesser means. This K–12 Islamic school offers a Montessori program, PTA, sports teams for boys and girls, and a students' blog with opinion sections and a style corner for the fashion-conscious Muslim girl, hijabi or not."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Arizona Cultural Academy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 18:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caawiye app[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The reasoning (which I agree with) was "Run-of-the-mill app without any proof of passing WP:NCORP" Bensci54 (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software, Websites, and Somalia. Skynxnex (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bensci54,

Thank you for your message. We understand that there is a concern about the notability of the Caawiye app and the reasoning behind the proposed deletion.

As per the guidelines of Wikipedia, articles on companies or organizations must meet the notability guidelines established in WP:NCORP. This includes demonstrating significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

We believe that the Caawiye app has demonstrated its notability through the coverage it has received in various media outlets, as well as its popularity among users in Somalia. The article has also been updated with additional references to meet the requirements of Wikipedia's content policies.

We hope this addresses your concerns. If you have any further questions or comments, please don't hesitate to let us know.

Best regards,Shahwah23 Shahwah23 (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a article about an application, the article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. I'm not so sure WP:NCORP is as applicable here, but it would meet those criteria either. The somaliblogger.com site is the Caawiye website so that's not an independent source. There's a scholarly article mentioned in the Wikipedia article but I can't find any journal just called "Journal of Education Technology", and there are multiple scholarly authors who are named Angela Lee (example 1, example 2, example 3) who write in areas that would be covered in journals that are similar sounding to or include the phrase "Journal of Education Technology". I can't find a paper under that name, even when searching random journals that include "Journal of Education Technology" in the name and happen to have a Vol 35, No 2. I can't find this paper, which is not to say it doesn't exist, but I suspect that if this paper mentions this article's subject, it is going to be a passing mention or an example with little context as to the app itself. Outside of the app's website and this paper that I can't find, there's no additional sources that I can find, and what's here doesn't show notability. I will note that the app is available in both English and Somali and I do not speak Somali so there may be Somali sources that I am not aware of, but with the information on hand, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. - Aoidh (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Aoidh,

Thank you for taking the time to review the Caawiye app Wikipedia article. We appreciate your input regarding the article's subject's notability.

As for the scholarly article mentioned in the article, we will make sure to provide a more specific citation to avoid confusion. Additionally, we understand that the somaliblogger.com site is not an independent source and we will strive to include more sources to demonstrate the app's notability.

Furthermore, we acknowledge that the app is available in both English and Somali, and we will do our best to find reliable sources in both languages to further establish the app's notability.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention and we will work to improve the article accordingly.

Best regards,

shahwah23 Shahwah23 (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we" and what journal is the Journal of Education Technology supposed to be? Is there a DOI or a link to the paper itself? I see that the paper was removed from the Wikipedia article, why wasn't it just clarified instead? - Aoidh (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and the article looks like an advertisement. It also looks like based on the author's user page and the app's website that they're affiliated with the developer in some way, which is WP:COI. Lewcm (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ian MacDonald (architect). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

House in Caledon[edit]

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

This is an article that reads like a Sunday supplement promo feature, sourced entirely to articles that read like Sunday supplement promo features. (Honestly, what do you call these things? Some unholy hybrid of press release, real estate catalogue, and architectural fashion shoot? ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5]) There appears to be no third-party coverage here that required anyone to do more than paste pre-configured text blocks under a photo gallery. I'm not all that coversant with our architecture articles, but I question that this is good enough for an encyclopedia. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Arban, Tom (2012-07-26). "A peek at architect Ian MacDonald's Caledon craft". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2023-03-10.
^ "House in Caledon by Ian MacDonald Architect Inc". Architizer. 2011-09-09. Retrieved 2023-03-10.
^ Dave (2011-05-25). "House in Caledon by Ian MacDonald Architect". CONTEMPORIST. Retrieved 2023-03-10.
^ Baird, Daniel (January 13, 2011). "Meadow House Points of View".
^ "Meadow House / Ian MacDonald Architect". ArchDaily. 2012-12-13. Retrieved 2023-03-10.

Redirect to the architect. Non-notable residence. I live in the area, and it's basically run of the mill for housing there. Large, sprawling estate homes. This is from 2010, so is in no way historic. Reads like a promo. Oaktree b (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete/redirect to Ian MacDonald (architect). Article is not notable since it’s one of the many houses found in the area. It’s also not a work by Pablo Picasso or something. The article also reads like a Sunday promo. BenzoAid (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless better standalone sources on this building are found, redirect to Ian MacDonald (architect) per Oaktree. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - while I do not feel as strongly as some of the above editors, I think this falls short of WP:GNG. Target should be Ian MacDonald (architect)#Selected projects.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Echo (Leona Lewis album). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Let Me Down (Leona Lewis song)[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV or WP:NSONGS. Although the song received some coverage for leaking, it was part of a wider list of leaked songs and the coverage was largely from periodicals. Elsewhere the coverage is taken from Lewis' tour or the parent album and a large portion of the article is information taken from the album liner, repeated on the album's page etc. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to Leona Lewis discography. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Echo (Leona Lewis album). I think the album would be a better redirect target than the discography list. I could not find enough independent coverage on this particular song in third-party, reliable sources to justify this having its own article, but I believe redirects when viable targets are available are always better than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Echo (Leona Lewis album) which is definitely a better target. As stated above, coverage is not primarily about this song itself and what is included in this article is already covered by the album article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 18:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Wathagi[edit]

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

Subject of the article does not meet the notability criteria in WP:GNG Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 14:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Kenya. Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 14:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I made some improvements to the article. My searches indicate that she is known as Joy Wathagi Ndungu, Wathagi Ndungu and, Joy Wathagi. CT55555(talk) 18:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO. Sources do not provide in-depth, independent coverage. Non-notable award. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while I appreciate the work of CT55555, simply not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of note. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Really just attending meetings and all of a sudden your an advocate. I don't think so. No evidence for a BLP. scope_creep^Talk 21:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xangati[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted in 2011 and then recreated in 2015. I believe there was a COI issue there, but it was eight years ago and the account involved hasn't edited since. I don't think any of the issues raised in 2011 have gone away since then: at heart, there's just not enough coverage of this company for it to have been notable.

None of the sources presently linked from the article are any good for notability. They're all first-party, from people involved with the company itself.

Here are the sources I turned up that might establish notability (i.e., third-party coverage):

I don't think this is enough. These are a mix of routine coverage of industry events and lightweight blog-like commentary; the ITPro article is easily the meatiest of the lot of them, but even that's tending marginal (still fairly shallow, and not the world's most renowned information source). Polyphemus Goode (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software, Computing, Internet, and Companies. Polyphemus Goode (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The sources above are (1) an article about the company acquisition, which NCORP specifically calls out as trivial coverage, (2) and (3), marketing churnalism, and (4) a review, which is a single WP:PRODUCTREV; such articles require multiple reliable sources, not a single review that focuses on the product and not the company itself (and even that would fail WP:NSOFT if the article was rewritten to focus on the software). - Aoidh (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no acceptable WP:SIGCOV per Aoidh. PopoDameron ⁠talk 00:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chargers–Rams rivalry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is on a non-existent rivalry that has only comprised 13 total games, with only two games as Los Angeles-based teams. Sources do not support the existence of a true rivalry and thus fails WP:GNG. Very little has changed since the article was moved to draft space in March 2022. Article declined at WP:AFC twice, most recently in January 2023. Requesting article be ~~moved back to draft space or~~ deleted. ~~and requesting protection against recreation on the mainspace page.~~ Frank Anchor 13:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and California. Frank Anchor 13:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There might be something notable here if someone wanted to really dig in and develop it. The series began with a preseason rivalry in the late 60s, early 70s that drew some real coverage as a rivalry. See, e.g., 1967, 1968, 1969 (President Nixon attended, largest crowd to watch a football game in San Diego), 1970, 1970. It also received sigcov when the Chargers returned to LA (they started there) for a regular-season match with the rams in 1970. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the last time we had a discussion on this same topic, the result was to draftify. Of those comments, I don't see anyone taking a keep position last time. I'm not seeing any compelling reason to overturn or move from draft to mainspace, but there does appear to be some sourcing and effort put in by an enthusiastic editor. It appears to be a good faith effort, so I don't mind reviewing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Upon further reflection, I think this one should be deleted. Any valuable content can be merged in to other articles easily and there's not really any coverage that this would be a rivalry significant enough for inclusion here. My position here is based more on editing preference because we've found over time that rivaly articles generally don't work out to our advantage as an encyclopedia (with a good number of exceptions of course!). Anyway, that's where my thinking takes me. I'd be open to changing my position if someone produces good coverage of this being a rivalry worthy of inclusion. I would not object to sending it back to draft if there's an enthusiastic editor that wants to work on it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  eh after this season particularly had a few notable moments between the two teams, I reinforced the references and dug deep for anything else, to be fair; it holds more relevance than say the 49ers-raiders rivalry PontiacAurora (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This isn't a "real" enough rivalry to warrant a standalone article. It's not typically referred to as a rivalry except in the context of competing for the fandom of LA. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources in the article and those presented above do not pass GNG in terms of establishing the Chargers and Rams as rivals. They don’t mention a “rivalry” between the two teams at all or just have a passing mention of the term. I oppose re-draftifying. It is unlikely a rivalry will develop in the short-term as the teams will play either zero or one game over the next three seasons. This series could become a rivalry like the Jets and Giants, but that’s probably at least a decade away unless they meet in multiple Super Bowls. Carson Wentz (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found this article about a Chargers–Rams rivalry saying it isn't really a rivalry... yet, but it talks about how a rivalry can be in the works. I do think a Chargers-Rams rivalry page CAN be made, but it would have to be in the very far future as the Chargers did recently move to Los Angeles recently while the Rams did have historical significance in Los Angeles before they moved to St. Louis back in 95. Swagging (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries at Kingsmead Cricket Ground[edit]

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

While the individual entries are of course notable, the list topic as a whole seems to lack notability (WP:LISTN) and is mainly covered by statistical databases only. It isn't an exceptionally rare occurence anyway (74 test centuries in 45 tests): the centuries will individually be covered in match reports and the like, but the group of these centuries by ground is apparently not really of interest. Many similar pages have already been deleted at AfD. Fram (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Cricket, and South Africa. Fram (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. There is a source here which does, briefly and perhaps only implicitly, discuss centuries at Kingsmead as a group or set: Jacques Kallis is the only player to have scored two centuries at the ground.. It’s not ideal, but I think it shows that the concept behind this list is not outlandish and may have potential. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. There already seems to be a broad consensus that these articles shouldn't exist: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at Carisbrook Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at Dubai International Cricket Stadium. People can find this information easily on the ESPN Cricinfo statsguru. Ajf773 (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, plus the number of similar discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Stott[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Impressive looking wall of text, this, until you start looking at the sources and then we find ourselves faced by theatre programs, blogs, Facebook pages, owned media, incidental mentions and sources with no link to the subject (the 'I am Kloot' interview doesn't even mention Stott; source 45 - one of a number like this - is a generic article about Whatsapp and totally unrelated in any way to the article subject). Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Film, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't quite work out if this is fake or a joke, but there is more text in this article about the subject matter than on the rest of the internet combined.MNewnham (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there – I really tried hard here to make sure I produced an in depth article that was source rich, both with secondary sources, as well as contextual sources. In addition, in preparation for this I explored a lot of transmedia Wikipedia pages seeing what had been flagged on stub articles, and worked to improve some of the Wikipedia media pages for Stott as well. Over the last six months I have watched his visual media and got hold of some of the harder to find transmedia items too. In short, I put a lot of work into this to try and make sure it was fulsome, and not one of those stub items with ‘need more details and sources’ pegged to it! I see commenters have said things like this article uses blog posts and facebook mentions. However, these tend to be used for context and dates of release. There is also secondary sources such as newspapers, The Guardian, Liverpool Echo, The Bolton News; broadcasters, the BBC, industry magazines, such as Pocket Gamer, industry podcasts, such as Conducttr, and academic journals such as Journal of Screenwriting, Screenworks, Journal of Media Practice, as well as conference proceedings. I believe that there should be more representation of emerging artforms on Wikipedia, with their creators given the same depth of coverage as say filmmakers and musicians (which I have previously worked on). Given Stott’s 25 year career, vast mediaography, and awards (inc Webby Awards 2008) I thought the work and profile of this person in the UK artscene context to be an interesting project. I truly tried my best with this, and so am a bit disappointed it has been flagged. I don’t think the perfect should be the enemy of the good, but I also realise that the flagging is coming from a good place to keep Wikipedia the best it can be. In that spirit, if anyone can give me concrete advice how to improve this, I would be very open to that, as while I have been doing Wikipedia updates and page creations for a few years now, given this is just a hobby and a giving back to a resource I use all the time, I am certainly still a beginner, or newbie I guess. Thanks for reading. (User:McrPhilosophy) 11:03, 15 March 2023 (Indonesia)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Gilles André Couvrette[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Senegal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This appears to have been put into the Japan delsort page by mistake. It seems like it should have been put in the Jordan delsort page instead. I have now revised this. Bensci54 (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I assume any valuable sources will be Canadian. Since it was included in the Sweden-related discussions I took a look in the Swedish newspaper archives, and while I found some shorter articles I couldn't locate anything substantial. /Julle (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since Ambassadors are not inherently notable, and that is all he seems to have going for himself here. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tito Ovia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Some mentions, but not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Health and fitness, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promo-like, "entrepreneur" can mean just about anything. "People give you money and you run a company" isn't notable. Mentions are all flowery text. Oaktree b (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nigerian health worker and 'trep, fails WP:GNG, insufficient coverage. As Celestina007 pointed out in AfD #1, being the daughter of a wealthy person doesn't make you notable, although it might help with the promotion budget. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Barfoot[edit]

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

Dual failure to meet notability criteria, either specific notability for a creative individual or general notability. There are claims of awards, but in the case of the Dragon*Con awards, while it's verifiable that a film of that title won the award, it's not verifiable that Barfoot did. More critically, there is an absolute dearth of coverage of Barfoot in independent reliable sources. In other words, Barfoot may very well be a good actor and filmmaker, but he isn't a notable one—and it's the lack of notability that means the article should be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. —C.Fred (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reviewing the edit history of an article about Chris Barfoot and finding the immortal edit summary, "Everything here is factual... I know this... because I am Chris Barfoot. Thank you." you know you're in for a treat. Companies house has Chris Barfoot Productions Ltd as a 'Dormant company', FWIW. A search yields very thin gruel, the page is a mess (the sourcing more so) and the notability of the subject clearly lacking to the evident appreciation of all bar only ATLANTEAN PROTAGONIST. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for COI promo, possibly even non-independent sourcing. Winning a non-notable award isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first four pages of Google show nothing independent relating to a “Chris Barfoot” search. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE. Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A case might have been made that in Nov 2020 there was a longer version of this article with 20 refs, but in reviewing the references, 13 were IMDb, 3 were name-mention only, and 3 were no longer functioning websites that had been cited for minor awards (dragon.com). There is a concern, perhaps moot, that the creating account Ginsfella and another account Sellotape123 were single-purpose accounts that had not declared paid or COI, and may actually have been Chris Barfoot, who most recently has been editing the article as ATLANTEAN PROTAGONIST. 22:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Delete - This seems a clear cut case to me. Even if the conflict of interest concerns are left aside, there is no evidence that the subject has anything like the kind of notability that would lead to them having a Wikipedia article. Dunarc (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rek-Vee Industries[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. The only source in the article also includes only a passing mention of Rek-Vee. The article is also orphaned. BenzoAid (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BenzoAid (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh me, oh my, but Angelfire. How does that take me back? Outside that, and other Wikis derived from it, and a smattering of passing mentions in books, there's nothing much out there. I'd perhaps propose an ATD possible redirect to Public transportation in Toronto, but there's nothing to justify a standalone article. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even think a redirect would be plausible, because so little (reliable) sources exist for Rek-Vee, so deleting seems like the most plausible option. BenzoAid (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced and no gnews hits. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ana María Alvarado[edit]

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

Poorly sourced stub of a Mexican journalist. Only source provided is promotional. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, and Mexico. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please see the updated references. She easily meets WP:GNG.KatoKungLee (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I think. I'm not good as assessing Mexican News sources, but it does seem she is notable:

La conductora ana maría alvarado habla de su tumor cerebral. (2020, Aug 13). El Universal Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/la-conductora-ana-maría-alvarado-habla-de-su/docview/2433265710/se-2 (health)
Ana maría alvarado hospitalizada por ataque isquémico. (2020, Feb 28). Notimex Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/ana-maría-alvarado-hospitalizada-por-ataque/docview/2366850374/se-2 (health)
Campos, R. (2022, Dec 10). ¿Ana maría alvarado está peleada con maxine woodside? La Razon De Mexico Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/ana-maría-alvarado-está-peleada-con-maxine/docview/2753053875/se-2 (being fired)
Universal, A. E. (2017, Oct 27). Ana maría alvarado lamenta la muerte de su padre. El Universal Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/ana-maría-alvarado-lamenta-la-muerte-de-su-padre/docview/1964872991/se-2 (father's death)
Ana maría alvarado ha aprendido mucho con maxine woodside. (2014, Oct 26). Notimex Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/ana-maría-alvarado-ha-aprendido-mucho-con-maxine/docview/1616449731/se-2 (career)

It could be tabloid, which is why I !voted weak. If anyone can confirm, I might be persuaded to change my vote in either direction, based on quality of sources. CT55555(talk) 03:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Because the article has been improved after the nomination and present sources seems fine. Thilsebatti (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Kennedy (record producer)[edit]

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

Only two sources on page, neither reliable (one an interview, the other I'm pretty sure there's a specific rule against but can't remember what it's called), and the rest is pure WP:NOTDIRECTORY vio. QuietHere (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Missouri. QuietHere (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Attempts to find GNG compliant sourcing for Brian have been unsuccessful. OP is generally correct regarding both of the existing sources. An argument could be made that he qualifies under criterion 2 of WP:PRODUCER (e.g The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work [emphasis mine]) considering his Emmy nomination ([36]) and his work on Disturbia ([37]), but the sheer lack (that I can find) of secondary sources that give him significant coverage makes me favor deletion. —Sirdog (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion: previously PRODded.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GB fan care to weigh in as the PROD remover? QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article sourcing insufficient, search reveals little other than the usual Discogs type stuff. Awards cited are not for 'best producer' and the argument that the Kennedy Space Centre janitor is actually an astronaut doesn't wash. No RS on offer. Fails WP:GNG. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandermcnabb (talk • contribs) 09:18, March 24, 2023 (UTC)
Delete I would have weighed in with a keep based on his Grammy awards, but the Grammy awards noted in the article are fiction. He was nominated for a Grammy for Disturbia, but did not win (according to Grammy.com ). As for the others, he would have needed to produce/mix/engineer at least 50% of an album to win a Grammy for that album, and he is mainly credited with one or two songs on each. JSFarman (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

224 (number)[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NNUM, as it does not have "at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties", nor is it culturally significant. It seems to have mainly been created in order to satisfy the interesting number paradox, but even that is no longer very relevant as 198 has been the smallest number without a Wikipedia article for over a year now. Regarding the mathematical properties listed in the article, being a practical number is not an "interesting property" as a quarter of all integers up to 224 are practical numbers, so it's barely more significant than being an even number. I also don't think being "the smallest k with λ(k) = 24, where λ(k) is the Carmichael function" is very interesting. I imagine these were simply the result of searching for 224 at The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. Nosferattus (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Nosferattus (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's quite nice that it is the sum of the cubes of four consecutive numbers but I doubt that's enough to show notability. I dislike that the text is self-referential about WP, as that reads as if some smartass is trying to cause a rip in the space-time continuum. JMWt (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Keep - This is not the only integer page with dubious standalone notability. There are some factoids here which it would be nice not to lose completely, so I'm hesitant to delete outright, but I think there needs to be a larger project to do something like merge all integers 200-299 into 200 (number). Doing a spot check, I can see many of these articles double as pseudo-disambiguation pages, e.g. the "In other fields" section of 218 (number). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Keep following the additional material added since listing. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that both practical numbers and sums of two cubes are interesting properties, but that 224 is not prominent enough in the lists of numbers with those properties to be notable for that. So I agree that, in the state in which this article was nominated, it did not demonstrate notability. On the other hand, I think the cultural applications (one existing in the article as nominated, its connection with the interesting number paradox, and two I just added, in cryptography and ancient coinage) are enough for a standalone article. The fact stated in the nomination that it is not currently the smallest missing number article is totally irrelevant to its notability, which cannot stem from the current state of Wikipedia but only from what reliable sources state about it. It is listed in published sources as being noteworthy for this fact, that it was once the smallest missing article in Wikipedia; that notability is permanent, deriving from the publications about it, and does not depend on whether that status has changed later. As for the pseudo-disambiguation pages for bus lines numbered X etc: I think we're better off having real disambiguation pages for that sort of material, and only keeping material in the number articles that is relevant to the mathematics of the number or to cultural uses of that number on its own, but not keeping material where it is merely one in a sequence of numerical labels for things. Fortunately, that widespread disease of our number articles is not present here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that this AfD inspired me to start a discussion about trivia and pseudo-DAB in number articles here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#Move trivia and disambiguation content out of number articles Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only one of the straight-up math properties really contributes to a case for wiki-notability, being one of the smallest numbers to be the sum of distinct positive cubes in more than one way. This OEIS sequence is labeled "nice", and 224 occurs early in it (the third item). In the other "nice" sequences, 224 appears too late to really be an illustrative example of that sequence. By itself, that wouldn't be enough to warrant a whole article. But the connection with the interesting number paradox is documented, and it counts. Someone else said it, so we can report that they said it. One good number-theory property, a recreational mathematics property, and the appearances in coinage and cryptography are enough to clear the bar. XOR'easter (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldnt spot anything interesting, significant or notable with the specific number. I particularly agree with the last sentence of @JMWt:. Cinadon36 09:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons given above. Also, frankly, I don't want this to be the only number in the 200 family without an article. There are certainly less notable pages in that bunch (see 226, 234, and many more). PopoDameron ⁠talk 17:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a super convincing argument.--Ipatrol (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'm not saying it's my main argument or anything at all. Mainly, it's as above, but it's just also something to keep in mind, even if just a bit. PopoDameron ⁠talk 16:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The additional content added by David Eppstein pushes it over the notability line, IMO.--Mojo Hand (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A case of SNOW. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Horacio de la Vega[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Mexico. Joeykai (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can you explain how he doesn't meet the GNG?

"Horacio de la Vega, nuevo presidente de la LMB" [Horacio de la Vega, new president of the LMB]. ESPN Deportes (in Spanish). November 26, 2019. Retrieved March 23, 2023.
Fernandez, Alexis (February 24, 2023). "LMB: Dueños manifiestan su apoyo a Horacio de la Vega Flores tras polémica" [LMB: Owners express their support for Horacio de la Vega Flores after controversy]. SDP Noticias (in Spanish). Retrieved March 23, 2023.
Salgado, Carlos Daniel (December 18, 2019). "Horacio de la Vega es presentado como presidente de la Liga Mexicana de Beisbol" [Horacio de la Vega is presented as president of the Mexican Baseball League]. El Universal (in Spanish). Retrieved March 23, 2023.
González, Jesús Isaac (October 16, 2018). "Horacio de la Vega, La Capital del Deporte" [Horacio de la Vega, The Capital of Sport]. Lideres Mexicanos (in Spanish). Retrieved March 23, 2023.
"Horacio de la Vega: Pentatleta" [Horacio de la Vega: Pentathlete]. Reforma (in Spanish). June 28, 2000. Retrieved March 23, 2023 – via ProQuest.
Basilio, Adrian (October 12, 2014). "Entrevista / Horacio de la Vega / Maratón al alza" [Interview / Horacio de la Vega / Rising marathon]. Mural (in Spanish). Retrieved March 23, 2023 – via ProQuest.
Gonzalez, Martha Isela (August 24, 1995). "Proponen a pentatletas para Premio Nacional" [They propose pentathletes for the National Award]. Reforma (in Spanish). Retrieved March 23, 2023 – via ProQuest.
Ramos, Laura (November 26, 1995). "Logra De la Vega el titulo nacional" [De la Vega achieves the national title]. Reforma (in Spanish). Retrieved March 23, 2023 – via ProQuest.
Gonzalez, Martha Isela (July 5, 1996). "'Mi ultima Olimpiada'" ["My last Olympics"]. Reforma (in Spanish). Retrieved March 23, 2023 – via ProQuest.

Since he has coverage going back 25 years. He's not only the current president of the Mexican Baseball League, but he was also a pentathlete that won major awards and was the national champion. Silver seren^C 05:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; as it stood most of the article content was entirely unsourced and an obvious violation of WP:NOTRESUME, so I have removed it. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; seems like enough sources exist to write a substantial article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Silverseren's list of sources look substantial enough. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep; does not fail WP:GNG at all. There is extensive coverage. He is not just the current president of the MBL, but he was also a national champion, winning many awards. There's enough sources to warrant an article to Horacio.

Comment: his article on the Spanish wikipedia was deleted, but only because the article was wa promotional article, not because it failed GNG. BenzoAid (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roxanne Fontana[edit]

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

I have searched Google, ProQuest, Newspaper Archives, and Newsbank, and until I found some videos I wasn't certain that Roxanne Fontana even existed. I can't find any evidence of notability, most of the references used go nowhere, and the assertions of the article are unverified and far-fetched. Based on my searches, she doesn't meet GNG or NMUSIC. JSFarman (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the spirit of full disclosure, I brought this article to the attention of JSFarman who I believe to be more competent than I in assessing the notability of LA music topics. I had no way of knowing how she might come down, but agree with her thoughtful assessment in this case. Cullen328 (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With AFD nominations too often being justified with "Fails WP:N" I appreciate the detail you have provided here and wish more editors would explain their logic like this, it gives me confidence in your nomination. Thanks. CT55555(talk) 14:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, CT55555. I really do not like nominating articles for deletion -- I think I have nominated four in 11 years! -- so I search until it's clear that my search will be fruitless. I truly appreciate your message. Thank you x a million. JSFarman (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete A few of the citations are primary sources such as her essays. Several of the sources such as New York Post are not available online to be verified. This does not mean they do not exist, so if someone can prove that these actually exist and have significant coverage on her, then I will change my vote to keep. Pershkoviski (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you mean the New York Press? I searched for the articles on the databases referenced above as well as via the Wayback Machine. (Just FWIW, the New York Post is not a reliable source.) JSFarman (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nagar Bhaban[edit]

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

NN building. PROD denied. UtherSRG (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Bangladesh. UtherSRG (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - of architechontical and historical interest. Listed as national heritage building ([38]) "Outstanding additions to the architectural heritage of the city in recent years include the Nagar Bhaban , ..." ([39]), "Nagar Bhaban is the result of a philosophy of assimilation and reflects a contemporary trend of rustic regionalism . In this building , elements from the colonial past have been freely employed . The façade articulation , proportioning [...]" ([40]). --Soman (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is vis-a-vis a significant municipal building which houses the HQ of Dhaka South City Corporation, should satisfy WP:N. Original objection raised by the editor who filed for deletion was on the grounds of there being no sources, a source has been inserted so deletion is unwarranted.—AMomen88 (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can either of you, voting for keep, expand the article or add more sources?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- to Dhaka South City Corporation, whose headquarters is Nagar Bhaban.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh has devoted significant coverage to the architecture of this important building. Cullen328 (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Efraín Saavedra[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. Google books comes up with 1 line mentions nothing indepth. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Italy, Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Peru, and Uruguay. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability or significant coverage of any kind. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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