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 23:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stars & Stripes (soft drink)[edit]

Stars & Stripes (soft drink) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable brand that's only secondarily mentioned by sites selling it. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Products. An anonymous username, not my real name 23:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hardly notable. Searching for it does return lots of results however none of them are reliable enough to establish notability. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not finding anything in sources that would really contribute to notability. Ad websites etc. don't really count for anything here. KoA (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This trivial mention is about all I can find [1]. non-notable brand. Oaktree b (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article subject doesn’t have sufficient notability. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 18:45, 2 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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric John Bergbusch[edit]

Eric John Bergbusch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Mauritius, Tanzania, Germany, Poland, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing in my article or my BEFORE suggests he meets NBIO/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as sources are easy to find. This extreme enthusiasm from LibStar for deleting all and any articles on Canadian ambassadors is sheer deletionism. NB, Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#Competence notes that This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved. Moonraker (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:MUSTBESOURCES, where are the sources you refer to? LibStar (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve sourcing. I see sources that make me lean towards notability. I also see he remained relevant a decade after office, being published in an article about Canada leaving NATO (https://www.jstor.org/stable/40203276). The article has sourcing issues, but I refuse to believe there are no outstanding print sources for the Canadian ambassador to East Germany in office towards the end of the Cold War. Not ripe for deletion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - neither of the keep !votes above is actually based in policy. Not nearly enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unsourced BLP. Fails GNG and BIO. The only "source" in the article is not about the subject. Jo7hs2 BEFORE showed the only a single primary nothing else worth reporting, other Keep showed nothing. My BEFORE showed nothing, Keep voters haven't offerred anything other than a single primary, article itself is unsourced since the ref isn't about the subject. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse.  // Timothy :: talk  18:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the notability criteria for Wikipedia are meant to ensure that the encyclopedia contains articles about subjects that have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. If there is not enough evidence to support the subject's notability, then it may be appropriate to consider deleting the article. Infinity Knight (talk) 12:00, 3 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of railway stations in Nagaland[edit]

List of railway stations in Nagaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails to meet WP:NLIST as WP:NOTDIRECTORY. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Lists, India, and Nagaland. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or Merge) with servicing railroad’s page(s). Fails NLIST. But, the information is useful and should be preserved, if it wouldn’t clutter the serving railroad or servicing rail segment page. Being a standalone article is unnecessary. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a convenient and noteworthy list of railway stations in the state of Nagaland. The Anonymous Earthling (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There are also other Indian state's list: List of railway stations in Delhi, List of railway stations in Haryana, List of railway stations in Jammu and Kashmir, List of railway stations in Punjab, India, List of railway stations in Kerala, etcetera. The Anonymous Earthling (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Enough blue links to justify a navigational and information list. List of railway stations in India is unusable since its too massive. It would be best to list everything into separate list like this one based on states of India. Dream Focus 05:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It doesn't qualify WP:NLIST as WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Haoreima (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - lists of railway stations whether inside or outside India are an accepted form of list to which none of the criteria in WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies and no reason has been produced why Nagaland should be different. User:Dream Focus makes a very good point about the sheer size and unwieldiness of List of railway stations in India. Ingratis (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If i saw this earlier I would have said "Speedy Keep". Decisions whether to merge or split subsections/pages within the world-wide List of railway stations, or whether to include certain items or not, should not be brought to AFD. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 19:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Fails WP:NLIST, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, but article passes WP:CLN/WP:AOAL.  // Timothy :: talk  09:02, 2 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 delete. No suitable rationale for passing GNG was advanced. This is probably simply a WP:TOOSOON article. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Batuhan Çelik[edit]

Batuhan Çelik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Of the sources in the article, [2] is an automatic compilation from a database that is part of massive amount of similar articles on the same site[3], [4] is three lines of routine transfer announcement, [5] is an interview and thus WP:PRIMARY, [6] is a short match report. I was unable to find any significant sources during a search. Alvaldi (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Alvaldi (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes GNG with significant coverage. Also this meme needs to end, interviews don't go against PRIMARY.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  More accurately they are not independent of the subject and thus do not go towards GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ortizesp, could you please explain what you mean by "interviews don't go against PRIMARY"? WP:PRIMARY specifically lists interviews as an example of a primary source, does it not? –dlthewave ☎ 13:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft Seems to be an interesting prospect from what I read online, some sources there. I feel this is one to send to draft space which could pass GNG in the future. Govvy (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think it is highly unlikely anything will change N in the next six months for this subject, not impossible, but I seriously doubt it will happen. If someone wants the old article because new sources are found in the coming years, they can REFUND.  // Timothy :: talk  11:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: BLP Fails GNG and BIO. Source eval table:

Comments	Reference
Promo bio	1. "Batuhan Celik kimdir, nereli? Boyu ve yaşı kaç? Batuhan Celik Hangi takımlarda oynadı?". Bölge Gündem Haber.
Photo, no info	2. ^ "Başakşehir'de Batuhan Çelik profesyonel oldu". Fotomaç.
Interview quote	3. ^ "Başakşehir'de Batuhan Çelik, Adnan Januzaj, Gent Maçı Sonrası Konuştu". ajansspor.com.
Team photo after a game	4. ^ "U18 Milli Takımı Romanya'yı mağlup etti". Sabah.

Keep provided no sources.

The BEFOREs and table above showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  11:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. My own research into the subject doesn’t find any indication of WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that would establish notability as specified in WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE as the relevant policies. A notable subject would be expected to have demonstrable significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources, which I did not find when I did my own search. The coverage that does exist doesn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG guidelines. If criteria in the relevant policies were met, there would be a strong case to be made for keeping. However, I don’t see that here and therefore I conclude that the article should be deleted as the subject lacks demonstrable notability. Additionally, WP:GNG is also failed here due to a lack of significant (in depth, non trivial and non routine) coverage by qualifying sources. Deletion is the appropriate outcome, since the article subject fails WP:GNG notability criteria. One could entertain inclusion if there was any existing claim to WP:NOTABILITY under the appropriate guidelines, which just isn’t met here. Finally, I note that WP:SPORTSPERSON is not satisfied as a matter of course, which follows from a lack of reliable source SIGCOV that isn’t either WP:ROUTINE or WP:TRIVIAL. Any claim to subject notability should be backed by a strong basis in policy, which simply isn’t the case here since the subject doesn’t meet WP:NATHLETE, WP:SPORTSPERSON or WP:GNG criteria under WP:NOTABILITY and GNG guidelines pertaining to subjects such as these. It would be a different matter entirely if the subject met any of these conditions, however, they do not and so deletion is the appropriate policy based conclusion. The case for keeping would be stronger and more compelling if the subject has demonstrable notability via WP:RS WP:SIGCOV. Overall, since none of the sources establish evidence of notability sufficient for inclusion, the article should be deleted. I would be more inclined to support keeping if any of the sources met the required criteria relevant under WP:NATHLETE and WP:SPORTSPERSON. Since they don’t, however, the strongest case to made here is the one for deletion. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Ortizesp. Also, he is young player with ongoing career in the fully pro Turkish Super Lig, which has lots of media coverage, and also already a Turkey youth international. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Das osmnezz Ortizesp states the subject has enough significant coverage to pass GNG without identifying any significant coverage whatsoever. Can you point to any of this significant coverage? Also, being young and having an ongoing career passes no inclusion criteria and playing in a notable league also does not make you notable as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. All this you know very well. Alvaldi (talk) 18:55, 3 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 delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Djémoussa Traoré[edit]

Djémoussa Traoré (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Of the three sources in the article, all are from database sites. I was unable to find any significant sources during a search. Alvaldi (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Alvaldi (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: BLP fails GNG and BIO. No sources showing SIGCOV for the subject. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  11:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unfortunately, we just can't keep this page in its current state... Oltrepier (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is insufficient WP:IS WP:RS WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NOTABILITY and WP:V requirements and satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 19:42, 2 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdoulaye Diaby[edit]

Abdoulaye Diaby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. I was unable to find any significant sources during a search. Of the sources in the article, [7] is a document from FIFA, [8][9] are routine transfer stories, [10] is from his team and thus not independent from the subject, and [11] is a database source. Alvaldi (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Alvaldi (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I managed to find two Al-Jazeera articles about him [12], [13]. He is also mentioned in several Guardian articles [14]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldenBootWizard276 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @GoldenBootWizard276 [15] is a transcript of a podcast interview with Benjamin Chevallier, the director of a documentary about Diaby, that has some prose from the interviewer. [16] seems to have been a Youtube embed of the documentary but it is unavailable now. Even so, if we consider the transcript a significant source, we still need more as GNG requires multiple sources and for notability purposes, multiple sources from the same publication counts as one. At a glance, I didn't find any significant sources in the Guardian articles. If you know of any significant sources there, please add them to this discussion. Alvaldi (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alvaldi: Abdoulaye Diaby is mentioned (albeit briefly) in The Indian Express:

  Adding to coach Des Buckingham’s woes, substitute defender Singh was the culprit in conceding a penalty six minutes before the break after his raised arm blocked a shot from Abdoulaye Diaby, prompting the referee to instantly point to the spot.

  Also the documentary is on Prime Video[17] and in several other sources, [18][19][20]. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep Per source above but the first is a primary sources not secondary but it goes a long way partially.Epcc12345 (talk) 15:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 18:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some sources not previously mentioned, [21][22][23] GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per above. Besides the sources above, I also found 13 among more sources. Also, he has an ongoing career with one of Hungary's most successful teams Ujpest in the fully pro Hungarian top flight (30+ appearances already), which generates media coverage. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article subject has appeared in media to a degree sufficient to satisfy WP:SIGCOV guidelines and warrant keeping the article under WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY. The case for deletion would be stronger if these conditions weren’t met (i.e. if the subject didn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV by WP:RS to establish WP:NOTABILITY under WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG). However, the degree to which the subject has appeared in media is sufficient to satisfy the relevant guidelines SIGCOV, RS, GNG, and NOTABILITY, and as such the argument for keeping is stronger on its merits than that for deletion. The sources provided in the table above satisfy SIGCOV requirements necessary to demonstrate notability according to WP:GNG guidelines. On my own review of the subject and sources, I find that notability criteria are met by the amount of demonstrable reliable independent source significant coverage. Additionally, the nature of the coverage indicates WP:IMPACT, which also supports inclusion as a standalone article under inclusion guidelines. The fact that promotional material exists on the subject is not a valid reason to suggest deletion (many subjects covered in Wikipedia articles are heavily promoted outside of Wikipedia, but that doesn’t negate their notability). Furthermore, the subject does indeed pass notability thresholds under the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 19:45, 2 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Willer[edit]

Jamal Willer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:46, 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. ✗plicit 23:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ellary White[edit]

Ellary White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:46, 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. ✗plicit 23:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Quashie[edit]

Joel Quashie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sources are weak. 2001:4455:6F5:7C00:A44E:A2CB:D9FA:3431 (talk) 04:43, 2 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 delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Crossan[edit]

Kate Crossan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails WP:BASIC and WP:SINGER. Searched Google and couldn't find any coverage of this person. Searched newspapers.com and there are a few trivial mentions of this person: 3 ads for workshops they hosted, 2 reviews of a CD her band put out, and 1 review of a music festival that mentions she will be there but she is not the focus of the article. I was only able to find this with her name Kate Crossan as her stage name returned nothing. There are only two references in the article one is a link to their personal website that doesn't load and another is a review of an album put out by a band that they were a member of.

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Canadian Journal for Traditional Music	Appears to be a journal for reviews of music	? Website doesn't list any qualifications or academic departments or organizations aligned with this journal	~ Names Crossan as part of a band in a review. Nothing about the author or the article is included or able to be found.	? Unknown
Personal Website	? Returns a 404 error	? Returns a 404 error	? Returns a 404 error	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Ireland. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 19:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete agree with source table above. There is no coverage for this individual, not meeting GNG. I can't find any sort of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unable to find anything other than performance notices and a press release about the launch of Away. S0091 (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG, not a notable singer. Spleodrach (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don’t see any indication of WP:NOTABILITY per WP:GNG and WP:RS WP:SIGCOV that would establish notability as specified in WP:GNG and WP:SINGER as the relevant policies. A notable subject would be expected to have demonstrable significant coverage by reliable independent secondary sources, which I did not find when I did my own search. The coverage that does exist doesn’t satisfy WP:SIGCOV sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG guidelines. If criteria in the relevant policies were met, there would be a strong case to be made for keeping. However, I don’t see that here and therefore I conclude that the article should be deleted as the subject lacks demonstrable notability. Additionally, WP:GNG is also failed here due to a lack of significant (in depth, non trivial and non routine) coverage by qualifying sources. Deletion is the appropriate outcome, since the article subject fails WP:GNG notability criteria. One could entertain inclusion if there was any existing claim to WP:NOTABILITY under the appropriate guidelines, which just isn’t met here. Finally, I note that WP:SINGER is not satisfied as a matter of course, which follows from a lack of reliable source SIGCOV that isn’t either WP:ROUTINE or WP:TRIVIAL. Any claim to subject notability should be backed by a strong basis in policy, which simply isn’t the case here since the subject doesn’t meet WP:SINGER, WP:BIO or WP:GNG criteria under WP:NOTABILITY and GNG guidelines pertaining to subjects such as these. It would be a different matter entirely if the subject met any of these conditions, however, they do not and so deletion is the appropriate policy based conclusion. The case for keeping would be stronger and more compelling if the subject has demonstrable notability via WP:RS WP:SIGCOV. Overall, since none of the sources establish evidence of notability sufficient for inclusion, the article should be deleted. I would be more inclined to support keeping if any of the sources met the required criteria relevant under WP:SINGER, GNG, or WP:BIO. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 19:51, 2 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 delete. ✗plicit 00:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Mohsen (Producer)[edit]

Mohamed Mohsen (Producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable person. Other version already deleted on arwiki (previously deleted three times here). About article sources, all of them fake and from unreliable websites: (1) IMDb (WP:IMDB) and (2-18: 12 not working) paid with fake news and photoshopped images (1 + 2); you can notice, that all published either in July/August/September 2022 or January 2023. Texts are also repeated with the titles changed. Also, it's very obvious the try to prove notability by citation overkill, and most of the information in the article was not mentioned in the sources. Maybe there is some kind of promotion in this article, especially same user try to create Exclusive Movies (streaming platform) and Exclusive Movies, especially those two articles (Mohamed Mohsen + Exclusive Movies) associated with this sock master (with 19 socks) in arwiki, which already blocked in enwiki, example special:diff/983052586. Thanks on advance --Alaa :)..! 19:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: @علاء I mean, there are 18 news related to the article, and I have many articles on Google in the largest Egyptian news sites, and all of these are unreliable sources??

I mean, you think that the staff in all the newspapers and the editor-in-chief in each newspaper do not understand anything and fake news, and all the editors and administrators who Edited the article are also wrong, and you are the only right one !!

I'm not related to Sock puppet, Because he added all information on alpoop But I'm Mohamed Mohsen Not related to him.

Please search on Google [24] 196.157.69.183 (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is PROMO and uses what appear to be non-RS. I can't find anything for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because there are many reliable sources as shown in the search on Google [25] ، Please Check, Thanks. 196.221.48.141 (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promotional article and unreliable sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:58, 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. Aoidh (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deseo Inherente[edit]

Deseo Inherente (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The source is a fake leak with a stock image barcode from shutterstock and a misspelled address, see here: https://mobile.twitter.com/ashmebarak/status/1639692971330228233/photo/1 1arch (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 1arch (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello, I participate in this consultation, but I do not think it is necessary to delete the page. I already saw the source but it is that in the news they say that the name of the album and the track list has been leaked but the account itself is Ash Mebarak; Shakira does not say her official account but the record companies are not lying because I mean the company is Sony Music Latin and I don't think it's a lie. Saúl Rodrigo Martínez (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Check the article because I've seen on the news that Ed Sheeran is also working with Shakira for her new album. Saúl Rodrigo Martínez (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But trust the record companies because the companies never lie if it's an album produced by Shakira she says everything is true so let's trust Saúl Rodrigo Martínez (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete some sort of scam? I can't find anything about this "thing" and the sourcing is silly. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Draftity. Sources 1 to 6 are not about the album, and the only source discussing the album simply says that the track listing and title were leaked from an alleged back cover image. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's that, I mean, it's not a scam if I already saw the news, also check the references that refer to the album I put few because the rest are from google amp and a filter does not let me add these types of links so I do not add many but it would be better if Remove the google amp link from the blacklist in order to provide more details as in Spanish Wikipedia Saúl Rodrigo Martínez (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But deleting it is not necessary because for me what the company Sony Music Latin said is true because perhaps Shakira had mentioned that she is working on the new album. Saúl Rodrigo Martínez (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, I already saw the account that posted that on Twitter as false, but I don't think it's false if the singer Shakira has never lied to us. I checked the account and it says Ash Mebarak, it doesn't say the official name of the Shakira account, so maybe the Ash Mebarak account is fake. Saúl Rodrigo Martínez (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Merely existing is not a reason to keep a page. If you remove the background, there is nothing left that cannot be discussed in a single sentence at Shakira#Career. WP:NMUSIC has a very low threshold for inclusion and this article doesn't satisfy it mainly because it is an article that is based on rumors. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but the information in the article can change frequently depending on the news, but for this reason the page should not be deleted because obviously the new Shakira album that it announces must be true. Saúl Rodrigo Martínez (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can see that you are a new editor. Because of that, you do not seem to understand how the English Wikipedia works. We don't create articles that are based on allegations. Shakira hasn't mention this album exists. Sony Latin has not say this album exists. The WP:BURDEN of the sources discussing the album relies on a image that can be created by any person with Photoshop. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: regardless of whether it's fake or not, I see zero coverage of this album. Shakira is a huge star; if she had actually announced a new album, every pop music publication would have an article on it already. The lack of reliable publications (and not some random Twitter account) writing about this means there should be no article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Pure speculation, zero coverage of this album. ItsMario97 (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think it's necessary to delete the page, if what Sony Music Latin has published about Shakira's new album is true, then it has to be obvious because record companies don't lie. Saúl Rodrigo Martínez (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Saúl Rodrigo Martínez: "Record companies never lie, let's just trust them". Record companies are well known for outright lying about how many copies their artists' albums have sold. They inflate numbers all the time. They've engaged in payola, and engage in shady things around artists they want to protect. How many years did R. Kelly's record label protect him while receiving reports of what he was doing and has now been convicted for? Be real. Ss112 08:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No official, reliable confirmation exists. Ss112 08:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Delete - best case scenario it is WP:TOOSOON for this article. Worst case, it's a hoax of sorts. Either way, it's premature to have this article. Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If the title, tracklist, or even the near-future existence of a new album from a superstar like Shakira were real, we would get it from far more reliable sources than the hacks who are talking about "Deseo Inherente". Nobody anywhere in the reliable media has reported on this. The story is probably clickbait to generate money for online shysters; let's not contribute to that here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like a hoax to me. I assume the page is being used to present reliability in some sort of scam (e.g, selling the album on a third-party website). ImperialMajority (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi how are things? I hope it's all okay. Well, regarding the article, I already checked the references and there are some that refer to Shakira's new album, also I don't think it seems false, probably without revealing it Shakira could have told Sony Music Latin that this will be the name of her new album and that will be the tracklist, so I don't think the article is misleading. Luis William Hernández García (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Here I also participate in this consultation in case you need any help from me, but I hope you understand me. Luis William Hernández García (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sir, please take the time to learn more about how Wikipedia works. It does not matter if you checked the sources currently in the article, because those sources are unreliable, and they are either created by scammers or they are gullible gossip sites that repeat scammers. It also does not matter that Shakira "could have" told the record company about her future album. Here we need solid evidence that she DID really do that. This is an encyclopedia, not a rumor mill. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but I'm telling you that the singer may have told Sony Music Latin about her new album Deseo Inherente without revealing it in a video or viralizing it on networks. Luis William Hernández García (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not helpful to guess what "may have" happened. You can only use what reliable sources can confirm happened. You can guess what happened all day long, it won't help you save a Wikipedia article from deletion. Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have little to add to what has already been elaborated above. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 19:59, 2 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 speedy delete as a blatant hoax. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC) The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam Veterans Motorcycle Club[edit]

Vietnam Veterans Motorcycle Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

PROMO for a motorcycle club. Written like an advertisement. I don't find any sources we can use, beyond various mentions in social media or the like. Perhaps a good social cause, but nothing we can use for GNG either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: This page has just been reviewed. GyanKnow _{contributions?}
• Delete as the entire article has no references. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possibly speedy as hoax, the references listed at the bottom of the page appear to each be fakes, with the "We Shall Not Be Moved: Desegregation at the University of Georgia" citation being particularly glaring as it's not even clear how that would be related to the article content. See this ongoing ANI discussion for more investigation, as it appears that this and other articles are the product of ChatGPT or similar software. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 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. ✗plicit 23:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sooppy Narikkatteri[edit]

Sooppy Narikkatteri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable politician/political person. Not meeting GNG, being the president of some local clubs or associations isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails GNG and not passes NPOL. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 04:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG per nom. SuperSharanya (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]
• CU note SuperSharanya above is the sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: BLP Fails GNG and BIO. Source eval table:

Comments	Reference
404	1. The Hindu[dead link]
Brief mention, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	Madhyamam" . www.madhyam.com . Retrieved 26 March 2023 .
Brief mention, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	3. ^ "Failure to fund plan of local bodies" . Kerala Kaumudi Daily . Retrieved 26 March 2023 .
404	4. ^ e-governance[dead link]
Brief mention, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	5. ^ Desk, Web. "State-level Panchayat Day celebrations to begin today" . Sirajlive.com . Retrieved 26 March 2023 .
Brief mention, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	6. ^ "Nedumpana in Kollam wins trophy for best panchayat in State". The Hindu. 19 February 2011. Retrieved 26 March 2023 – via www.thehindu.com.
404	7. ^ Kerala farm labourers get monthly salary[dead link]
Brief mention, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	8. ^ "Panchayat fund to be increased by up to 10 per cent from next financial year: Chief Minister" . Sirajlive.com . Retrieved 26 March 2023 .
Brief mention, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	9. ^ "Government will give all encouragement to cruise activities: Minister KT Jalil" . Retrieved 26 March 2023 .
Brief mention, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	Madhyamam". www.madhyam.com. 29 November 2020. Retrieved 26 March 2023.
Brief mention, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	11. ^ "Nadapuram turns a new leaf". The Hindu. 25 October 2015. Retrieved 26 March 2023 – via www.thehind

The BEFOREs and table above showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV.

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  17:49, 2 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 delete. Aoidh (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Zalla[edit]

Christopher Zalla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable film person. All sources found are PR links, nothing extensive in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep- He is very notable he wrote and directed a grand Jury prize winner at Sundance and two of the PR links you mention are not PR links the New York Times and ArtForum . Would you please be considerate enough to follow the links first before presenting a catch all argument like that.

I will put in many more links momentarily. Plus the Law and Order episode he directed. There is nothing wrong with proposing am article for deletion there is something awry about doing it without flushing out the points of departure first.Strattonsmith (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• VERY STRONG KEEP here as well : Director Christopher Zalla not only won the grand jury prize at Sundance. He earlier won the best director prize at that festival, making him among the festival's most cherished alums. Also, this new release Radical is slated to be among this year's huge hits. More, both that and his earlier film Padre Nuestra are among the most mainstreamed American films to be produced in exclusively in Spanish. This is very significant. To delete, frankly, feels a tad unwoke. JackthePelican (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is JackthePelican's sole contribution to Wikipedia, so far. -The Gnome (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Doesn't have even infobox. SuperSharanya (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article does indeed have an infobox now.Strattonsmith (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @SuperSharanya (talk) This person just put in the infobox. The lack of independent sources argument kind editor is just not true, the references here include 2 New York Times pieces, ArtForum, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and many more. please peruse the sources one by one and see if that statement holds. Many kind thanks and wishes Strattonsmith (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment' - News Flash: Adding more independent sources just added the San Antonio Current and metacritic. [26] [27] Strattonsmith (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Film reviews that aren't about him? We need articles that discuss the person. Simply getting mentioned in the New York Times is wonderful, but we require an article about the individual, not a "name drop". Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well to start the HolLywood Rporter piece does that [28] and there are several interviews which talk to him in depth and I do not believe that they can all be classified as PR pieces... If you are going to take on this argument which you have I do think it is your onus to investigate the links rather than just saying what they are. For my part I will search out and employ more sources that talk about him specifically.. I am about to write the page for the movie Radical which has a list of 29 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes but my eye is strained this conversation has pushed me optically as far as I can go. I regret that I have but one set of eyeballs to give to wikipedia to feel my skills are engaged use them or loose them as opposed to the cyclops who had but one eyeball to give to Odysseus in order that he would forever remain part of the storyline,Strattonsmith (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what any of that means. We need articles about the person, not a mention in whatever website you have. Oaktree b (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I added New York Magazine now it talks of him. [29].Strattonsmith (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a caption under a photo, the article isn't about this person. Mentions and small listings like this don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Collaterally the whole thing adds up he not only directed the films he wrote them the films are very notable he is the creator of two prize winning films the second as you can read is about to break you are not trying to work with me you are trying to take every last detail and prosecute the case because that's how you see yourself in the Stanford Prison Experiment scenario here. So you argue that there is no notability which is clearly not the case from the legions of articles it comes down because you use your power to take it down and then ten more magazines publish articles and the film as you can tell from the reviews and the audience award is bound to be a hit and somebody else rewrites it and what did you prove that you can argue to have it taken down that happens over and over and over again here except in this case he is very clearly already notable. So you run my engines just so you could to drive a point which is only that you win a momentary battle. You need to read everyone of those articles because you are misrepresenting the facts. There are 29 articles on "Radica" itself alone and I will keep posting until this is proven . Plus he did a lifetime movie and two episodes of Law and Order which in of themselves does not make him single handedly notable but the acclaimed films written and directed by do. Strattonsmith (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Fixed the header of this AfD, which was broken by extraneous text. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment - The newspaper and Latino media posts have in depths reports the San Antonio Curren the Utah Review there is the in depth coverage widespread across different media titles everything from articles in Mexican American centers of population to big city national newspapers to entertainment magazines like variety and the Hollywood Reporter the coverage is broad based. Strattonsmith (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I wasn't originally going to weigh in on this as I have little interest in the film world, but the WP:BLUDGEON being put forward by the 'keep' !voter isn't based on policy at all. Yelling "VERY STRONG KEEP" and posting over and over doesn't count as six !votes. The argument seems to be WP:CRYSTAL, i.e. that this individual is about to release a film that's about to be huge and about to attract significant coverage of him and his work, so don't delete the article now. The article should be deleted, and if this future film comes out and gives this person significant coverage, the article can be created again and actually referenced this time. Flip Format (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The film has been screened and reviewed and it is referenced from those events having occurred, Strattonsmith (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. @Flip Format (talk) The argument about the film which has already premiered perhaps yes I overstated which was out of frustration because I should not have reacted having felt that the sources are multifold and it is being said they were something they are not all PR in totality from the onset of this discussion. That said the film about to be a hit should not be the reason and I would strike that you are correct. The very strong keep was another user there are not six votes there are two votes and comments. There are the prior films to the one which I overstated there are many sources. I will apologize for the overstatement I do not want to use that word bludgeon though the Crystal is apt. The later is not the main argument the directive employs it was part of overdoing it. I just could not fathom that some editors were saying there was not proper coverage when there is. Thank you and I will try to not get carried away. The coverage of his first film the Grand jury Prize winner and the second theatrical release together is significant .

What I should have done was just have left it as a simple analysis though I think I do now impart a solid argument and let subsequent voters decide for themselves which is correct. But please if voting peruse the links , the references, the sources.

Thank you for hearing me out. Strattonsmith (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The rationale and WP:BLUDGEON by a couple keep voters is not grounded in actual WP:NOTABILITY WP:GNG policy pertaining to subjects of this type. Right now I am inclined to push for deletion because I don’t see any compelling policy based argument to keep, but will do my own independent search for evidence of notability first. Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: BLP Fails GNG and BIO. The article has been refbombed with bare URLS, but these are all promo, brief mentions in articles about other subjects, interviews, etc. Discussion above shows nothing here meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that helps meeting GNG or BIO, just more of the same. None of the Keep votes show sources or base their comments in policy or guidelines. But policy is clear: BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  20:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)  // Timothy :: talk  20:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on account of lack of sources supporting subject's independent notability, sources adequate in number and appropriate content. There is just a plethora of citations that simply does not withstand scrutiny. Try as I might, I could not find enough support for this text to merit article status. Some forensics:

• The Film Maker link contains interviews with all participants in Sundance 2007; you're in Sundance, you get interviewed. The Columbia University link is even more generic: it's a list of all Columbia alumni making it to Sundance; you're an alumnus, you get mentioned. The archived link to IFC is a simple list of the 2009 Independent Spirit Awards nominations, with a single mention of our subject. The San Antonio Current link takes us to a routine presentation of films then currently screened in the city, with one movie from our subject among them. Then, we get a New York Times report "in brief" about 3 new movies out and about, one of which is, again, directed by Zalla. One more interview of Zalla and actor Eugenio Derbez in an IndiWire link. (For interviews, see here & here.) Then, Salt Lake Magazine reviews all Sundance films including one by Zalla.
• More of the same: A Yahoo Money link lists all 2023 Sundance Film Festival awards, with our subject name-dropped once, exactly what the ArtForum link and a MetaCritic link about "Worse & Best" also do. There's a report from Texas Monthly about many films ("El Paso–born wrestler Cassandro, Edinburg High School mariachis, a Matamoros teacher") and in there one film by Zalla is presented. This link takes us to an article about film editor Eugenio Richer, including an interview of him; Zalla does get mentioned. We, then, get an interview with actor Eugenio Derbez, in which Zalla is mentioned. The remainder of invoked sources is worse: The Rotten Tomatoes listing; etc.
• In sum: We can find many reviews of one or two films of our subject artist, such as here, here, here - but not here from a blog. The films themselves could possibly, albeit barely, make it into Wikipedia. But this does not make their creator notable as such.

Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:ARTIST: Is he "regarded as an important figure"? Has he "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work"? I find no evidence for any of this. Still, I sincerely wish for a future inclusion. -The Gnome (talk) 10:26, 5 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 delete. Consensus is determined by viewing the discussion through the lens of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and the comments by editors that cited sourcing issues were not addressed or rebutted in a way that shows that notability would or could be met. Aoidh (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Krystal Dawn Steadman[edit]

Murder of Krystal Dawn Steadman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not seeing notability beyond the incident. Using sources from the 1980s to cover an event that happened in 2000 seems like a stretch, somewhat OR. Oaktree b (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closely at what I was referring to, the 80s events weren't of the murder, but of the killers' pasts. Any other concerns? ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She's a murdered girl whose death impacted and united communities across the region. She deserves a page, let alone written and finalized the right way in consideration for her. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who else is a part of the discussion and decision-making? ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we need extensive coverage of the event, showing lasting notability. Not that someone was killed 20 yrs ago; this isn't a memorial website. Everyone is involved in the decision making process here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also note there is no coverage of the event in Gbooks, Gnews, the NYT or Jstor. Doesn't seem to have gathered any sort of attention past the event itself. No one "deserves" an article in wikipedia, this isn't a memorial or a feel-good website. I'm not sure how having a site "in consideration" of her advances the goals of wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are several sources still making memorial pages for Krystal today, and I reiterate, she's had lasting impacts. Did you not see what I wrote about the legal advocacy in the aftermath section? It doesn't take other major sites noticing for the site to be benefited, and users and viewers are naturally going to find the article, likely add more sources even than I could find, and prove she's still remembered. What's next, saying little happens in Nevada, so that's a de facto disqualification? Or that the Los Angeles Times doesn't count, it's no affiliate or something? ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I excluded Facebook links for obvious reasons. Does that account for something? ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really interested if it happens in Nevada or not, it's the coverage the matters. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's been plenty of coverage, including of effects from the crimes carrying on through the years. It's not confirmed yet, but I can add there are Cold Case and SVU episodes inspired by the crime. Would that help? ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I'm not completely suggesting that to save the page, but because crime fans have already made connections and would like to follow up with confirmations. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is too much finite detail about what seems to be an average crime, along with a WP:COATRACK about a memorial and its overall status, with both aspects well violating WP:NOTMEMORIAL (and SVU is known to fictionalize aspects of each crime so they aren't a carbon copy, and most of all it's a fictional television series). The detail about the memorial is also a POV violation. Wikipedia is not the appropriate site or use case for this type of article, and I will not go in the same response loop as Oaktree is stuck in. My vote! is final unless more compelling sources come up. Nate • (chatter) 21:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm for the first time, and to my surprise, hearing about the no memorial policy, but I wasn't meaning the page like that even! This is an encyclopedia after all, I was communicating a horrific death of an innocent child, a community who came together to honor her, and even preceding history people didn't circulate widely. That's educational and vital! I'd hope her family and friends would like the right narrative especially. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please read our policy about a neutral point of view immediately; your writing must be not only well-sourced, but neutral. Nate • (chatter) 03:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You mind clarifying to me what violations you're finding in that policy so I can clarify I don't mean it that way and/or correct myself? ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We try not to accuse people of things here and to discuss things neutrally, not favoring one point of view over another. Simply report the facts. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What did I write that sounds opinionated? I'm at a loss here! I actually went over my text a couple times and rewrote things the news articles didn't specify more on so I'd be impartial. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this would do better as a section about the main rapist (Sorias Sr.) by what the article seems to imply, he was quite a prolific rapist. ~With regards, I followed The Username Policy (Message Me) (What I have done on Wikipedia) 23:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this note reaches you. I don't have enough information on the rapes, because Krystal's murder got the most attention. I could easily put Soria, Sr. (no "s" at the end), in list of serial rapists, as I've been expanding that list for a while now. But as for renaming and changing the format of the article, I'm open to it, but I hope we can discuss a plan for that. An agreed plan between everyone wanting to work through this well with each other. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you might have to dig below the surface on Sorias, do you know the victim amount, or is it overexaggerated. I feel as there would be some documentation on him considering that these rapes seemed to have occurred at the start of the dot-com bubble, which would provoke at least some internet discussion and reliable sources to pop up about the other rapes. ~With regards, I followed The Username Policy (Message Me) (What I have done on Wikipedia) 21:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One news article speaks of the father's account, but only the father's account. There are likely more local news reports, which are difficult to find. There are otherwise memorials, social media posts, etc., less credible resources. As for the other rapes, the news reports only say so much. But one of my links leads to a review on a book based on the crimes, which wasn't reviewed well. Where I got much of my information. ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who would like to continue the discussion? ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're fine thanks. I'm still not seeing this as notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is pretty much over, sadly this page is going to get deleted probably, Steadman's murder is sadly just a run-of-the-mill rape and murder. ~With regards, I followed The Username Policy (Message Me) (What I have done on Wikipedia) 15:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not run-of-the mill! Why are we looking for a tabloid headline here?! When she died, a community was traumatized and even divided for years, THAT'S noteworthy! ContributingHelperOnTheSide (talk) 18:02, 2 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 delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh Gurdwara of San Francisco[edit]

Sikh Gurdwara of San Francisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable gurdwara written like a advertisement I wanted to PROD it but it had a speedy deletion in the past Qwv (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Sikhism, United States of America, and California. Qwv (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - a run of the mill local religious denomination. There doesn't appear to be a notable historic building they are located in either. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails GNG and ORG. NGEO points to GNG for structure. No sources in article or above show SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing that meets GNG. Cleaned unsourced promo material.  // Timothy :: talk  20:23, 2 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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arabs in Belgium[edit]

Arabs in Belgium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is based on a problematic issue. It claims that "Arab Belgians ... are Belgians whose ancestry traces back to the Arab World". This is false, as many people who come from the Arab World do not identify as Arabs. 20% of the Libyan population and 30% of the Moroccan population are Berbers, for example. This article includes Lubna Azabal, whose ancestry is Berber, and the vast majority of examples provide no sources to say that these people (all BLPs) are "Arabs". Moroccans in Belgium is more precise and already exists, and this article duplicates most of it. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Ethnic groups, and Belgium. Qwv (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete energetically. Per nom.—Alalch E. 19:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete quickly. Per nom.  // Timothy :: talk  19:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I have removed anything that has nothing to do with the Arabs and clarified some things. You should take a look at this too Berbers in Belgium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah Schneuwly -Schneider (talk • contribs) 20:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: It is possible to keep the text, but you have to remove almost everything, only the first and third paragraph would remain. The text has another problem: it mentions mosques, but Islam is not synonymous with Arab, and there may even be people whose ancestry is completely Belgian and have converted to Islam. Jvbignacio9 (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: since this has such a strong connection to BLPs strong consideration should be paid to whether this inclusion category is well defined enough per WP:PRECISE and nom arguements to have an article. Is its content or history in the article that is worth keeping if it was renamed and/or the inclusion criteria/lead changed to reflect a more WP:PRECISE criteria (if so exactly what is that content worth saving)? Again the strong connection to BLPs should be a main factor in considering all this; the number of BLPs that have been removed from the article and the nom show (as well as the recent ANI [30] related to all this) the article has a nebulous and unclear criteria.  // Timothy :: talk  02:05, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the population figures include non-Arabs, the content about the Arab European League is covered by Arab European League and the information about mosques at Islam in Belgium#Religious infrastructure and Great Mosque of Brussels, and removing that would leave nothing apart from a contentious BLP list. If anyone finds good sources on Arabs in Belgium as a topic, I'm open to changing my mind. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and others above, and possibly merge somewhere if the text needs to be preserved. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per the nom's concerns.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:29, 3 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Tam (artist)[edit]

Ho Tam (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of an artist, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for artists. The notability claim here is essentially that he and his work exist, which is not automatically enough in and of itself -- notability is not passed just by verifying that a person exists, but by showing evidence of significance, such as noteworthy art awards and/or the reception of enough third-party coverage and analysis about his work to pass WP:GNG on his sourceability.
But the three footnotes here consist of a "staff" profile on the self-published website of a gallery he's been directly affiliated with, one article from a smalltown community hyperlocal about one show at one non-notable local gallery in that small town, and one short blurb in a limited-circulation magazine. So the gallery profile isn't support for notability at all, while the two media sources are okay but don't add up to enough to pass GNG all by themselves.
Further, this was initially created by hijacking an existing redirect that was already in place linking to a politician of unquestionably greater notability, following which both this and the other person were moved again to disambiguated titles without any RM discussion to establish any sort of consensus that the artist's notability was actually comparable to the politician's.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just two hits of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the article is badly sourced, but after googling is clear that the artist is notable. Will add review in Artforum, and collections in a minuteHermann Heilner Giebenrath (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the article has been greatly improved since the deletion notice, with new sources including publications by independent scholars and galleries, and mentions of Tam's work in institutional collections and university archives. Ccshzhou (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 17:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The artist has multiple artists books in the National Gallery of Canada, which confers notability. Fixed duplicate listings in wikidata so that authority control data appears. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, much improved during this deletion discussion, notable and well-sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The artist's artists books are collected by major institutions in the New York City region as well, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art's Watson Library; the Museum of Modern Art's library; as well as the Whitney Museum of American Art's library. This confers the artist's notability reaching beyond Canada. WinifredSandersonLee (talk) 13:33, 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. Salvio ^giuliano 19:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tacuara Records[edit]

Tacuara Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article on an Argentine record label with no notable releases (not one of the more important indie labels per WP:NMUSIC) and no sources showing WP:SIGCOV either. I found no hits on this record label in Google News, Google Books, ProQuest, Newspaper Archive or newspapers.com. All I can find are the usual non-WP:RS like Bandcamp, SoundCloud, Discogs and Instagram, which do not confer notability. I also can't see why Abbey Road Studios is deemed to be a similar subject in the 'see also' section. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom: no sources are provided in the article and no searches turn any up. As far as I can tell, it's just one guy that came up with a "record label" for his music. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 17:38, 26 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 merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. Salvio ^giuliano 19:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stryker (Mortal Kombat)[edit]

Stryker (Mortal Kombat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

One of my favorites back in the day but unfortunately no longer meets notability. He hasn't been playable in twelve years, and there's next to no third-party coverage of him other than the same old "worst MK character!" rigamarole. Like the other AfDs, merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of Mortal Kombat characters: Doesn't show independent notability. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge To List of Mortal Kombat characters, an unnecessary split from the parent list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak merge: To List of Mortal Kombat characters. One of the few AFDs for Mortal Kombat characters I can get behind. And on one I personally created 11 years ago, no less. Maybe he would have had a chance if he was playable in MKX or MK11, particularly if he was DLC, but he wasn't. The coverage he has at Anime News Network is pretty good (which was since removed from the article, for some reason), and I'm not completely anti-listicle like some editors are, but I'm not seeing much in these listicles. So that's only one good source. That said, I have no prejudice towards reaction should more coverage on him pops up in the future. MoonJet (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of Mortal Kombat characters While this is a good article, the subject isn't notable enough. Also, could you list some of the "other AfDs" you're referring to? GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi. Over the past five months we’ve had a bit of a fire sale with MK characters who no longer meet notability requirements for individual articles, mostly due to lack of significant coverage or few playable appearances. So far it’s Motaro, Sheeva, Cyrax, Sektor, Rain, Skarlet, Sindel, and just recently Baraka, Shinnok, Kabal, and Smoke. Jade may join the crowd soon as she is currently up for AfD. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The sourcing doesn't meet notability, but there is an obvious merge target to preserve some information. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I am not a fan of the constant nominations of MK characters recently, and I'm not even a MK fan, but they just are not notable. At all. I just wish the nominations were spaced out more. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  After this and Jade, I think we’ll be done for awhile. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  After the Goro AfD, which is the last minor character at the afd right now. Giving more time for Quan Chi and Noob Saibot article to be improve. GlatorNator (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @GlatorNator: I do suggest a Noob Saibot and Quan Chi AfD. Saibot has one good piece of significant coverage (the Polygon piece), but that alone is not sufficient for WP:GNG. Quan Chi doesn't seem to have any. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't be nominating MK articles for awhile. Don't want any potential drama like on Beemer69 talkpage. But, I hope you will. Only if you can. GlatorNator (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ultimately all arguments in favor of keeping are emotionally motivated. These articles were all split in the past by fans, when that really shouldn't have been done. This isn't about having a vendetta about some series and anyone who says so is unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. But I will gladly do so if you don't wish to have too much attention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 17:13, 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 merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. Aoidh (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jade (Mortal Kombat)[edit]

Jade (Mortal Kombat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Like Smoke, her only contribution to the MK series after three decades is being the BFF of a more notable character. There's not enough noteworthy reception out there to hang on to the article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or Merge Fails WP:SIGCOV. GlatorNator (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge To List of Mortal Kombat characters, an unnecessary split from the parent list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Unlike Baraka and Stryker (and maybe Smoke), which were recently at AFD too, I think this one should be kept. Like Kung Lao, Jade is a very popular character, so there's bound to be more coverage on her, over the likes of Baraka, Stryker and Smoke. Anyway, here's some pieces on Jade: [31] [32] [33] [34] The last two are not much, but they show real-world significance for her. Jade is also discussed in this book on black women in video games. Jade is discussed here too. Well, strangely, I don't see anything in the article article, but I do from the search excerpt. MoonJet (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  All of this strikes me as trivial coverage or unreliable sources. Cosplay of a character is rarely a mark of notability, unless the author somehow went into heavy analysis of their character design. This is... not. It's just "ooh, this person dressed as a video game character". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not a book but simply an essay, and Bounding Into Comics is not a viable VG source. The Daily Dot one is good, but it's the only one to legitimately go into any depth about the character. Lastly, the Jade cosplayers (not counting Cargill's ring outfit) mentioned here and formerly in the article are not notable. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether it's a book or essay, it's a good source to use for the character. MoonJet (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with List of Mortal Kombat characters. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 17:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per reasons above. 2001:4455:6F5:7C00:A44E:A2CB:D9FA:3431 (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect To List of Mortal Kombat characters, merging will only mv poorly sourced non-encyclopedic content into other articles.  // Timothy :: talk  20:31, 2 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 List of Konami games. Salvio ^giuliano 19:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Combat[edit]

World Combat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I came to copy edit this article, and discovered it was almost entirely a game guide. It's completely unreferenced, and I can't find anything about it beyond simple directory listings. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect To List of Konami games, as it can be confirmed in WP:RS as a Konami arcade game, at least under the Warzaid name. However, it seems to fail WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or merge per Zxcvbnm. There is enough to verify that it exists, but still fails WP:GNG without more coverage. I hope some small part of this can be preserved. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to closer: I'm fine with redirecting per WP:ATD. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:36, 2 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. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller (hy/hym) (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine 2 University[edit]

Constantine 2 University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, lacks notability. Pizzahut69 (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Africa, and Algeria. Pizzahut69 (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a public, degree-awarding university in Algeria. Mccapra (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We invariably keep articles on degree-awarding universities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 28 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. I'm closing this early as a Keep as there is no support for Deletion and the nominator was identified as a sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rene Van Hulle[edit]

Rene Van Hulle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable. ImperialMajority (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep notable in the Chicago LGBQT community. Coverage in major newspapers used as references. BostonMensa (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Does not matter. It still does not meet WP:GNG. ImperialMajority (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Having significant coverage, and that includes major newspapers like the Chicago Tribune as opposed to a smaller paper serving the suburban community, has been successfully used in many debates. Wh should this discussion be different? BostonMensa (talk) 12:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as two in-depth articles published in two major newspapers about him already cited in the biography that meets WP:SIGCOV. He received a major award so meets WP:ANYBIO. Please check the below article about the award he received:
  • City's liaison to gays takes pride in special hall of fame. We shouldn't be baised and maintain neutrality. Colaheed777 (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found one more: Van Hulle Remembrance April 12. Colaheed777 (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • how is mentioning he received awards, which was reported in the Chicago Tribune, promoting bias? BostonMensa (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please ((ping)) me in replies) 09:40, 28 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 19:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Rolling Fork–Midnight–Silver City tornado[edit]

2023 Rolling Fork–Midnight–Silver City tornado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This tornado isn't notable enough just yet. Plus, we barely have any information on the tornado's rating (since it's preliminary), and this article was created by the same guy who made the January 24 outbreak article which was sent to AfD. Poodle23 (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — This was previously moved into mainspace very pre-mature. This was moved back into draftspace by myself on grounds that it was very much not ready for mainspace. The article creator added around 800 characters worth of formatting information (not much content), then moved it back into mainspace. At this point, draftification failed, so just a plain old delete on WP:CFORK grounds is the best option right now. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per Elijahandskip Undescribed (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – But not because it is from the same author as the Deer Park EF3 author. Reasoning explained by Elijahandskip. Mjeims (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Elijahandskip. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just not ready yet Infinity (talk - contributions) 16:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – what nom and Elijahandskip just said. Tails Wx 17:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Too early. Maybe later, but not yet. ChessEric 18:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – No since in doing this now. United States Man (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only two sources and seemingly more inexplicably concerned with retail store damage rather than fatalities. Needs a complete rewrite in draftspace. Nate • (chatter) 21:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's early for this article, we should wait till we get more info. Besides there's already a section in the article about the outbreak it was in, with almost the same info as this article. Plus, we're getting premin. info from the damage survey. Just Merge the article till we get more info to justify an article.--Halls4521 (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I just wrote up the section for this tornado and I can tell you that there is no need for an article. ChessEric 23:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is also an RFC ongoing that the section might be too long. As for the article, redirect per WP:ATD. 98.116.45.220 (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      That has already been resolved. ChessEric 19:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON.

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 19:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Bonar[edit]

Brian Bonar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This BLP of a business executive is poorly sourced. Does not meet WP:GNG. Thesixserra (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Thesixserra (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 26 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 23:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations[edit]

Group of Friends in Defense of the Charter of the United Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. The article has been tagged for notability for a year now, which seems to be based only in a July 2021 Reuters article. Since then, there have not been any significant developments regarding the group (including the endorsement of UN resolutions), and as an unofficial group it lacks significance. NoonIcarus (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, Algeria, Angola, Zimbabwe, Cambodia, China, Korea, Laos, Iran, Palestine, Syria, Belarus, Russia, Caribbean, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. NoonIcarus (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There seem to have been plenty of announcements and updates in 2022, including this secretary general message, and there are 7 Google scholar mentions now featuring the group's name. The last source already featured on the page is from March 2023. It's a little light on secondary news coverage, but it's an extant UN group with a large volume of mentions. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The fact that it is a grouping of states makes it a lot more significant than a grouping of individuals with the same amount of coverage would be. Also, none of the 20 member states are English-speaking, so it is likely that coverage is more extensive in those other languages. There is plenty of activity at https://www.gof-uncharter.org/blank-1 that is likely to have received press coverage. Zero^talk 00:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Zero0000. I searched in Chinese and found lots of sources (here are some: [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]). I suspect there might be sources in some of the other languages used by member countries. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per above.  // Timothy :: talk  20:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:11, 2 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 List of Black Clover characters#Yuno Grinberryall. Salvio ^giuliano 18:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yuno Grinberryall[edit]

Yuno Grinberryall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Copied from Fandom, which should be CC-licensed. Searches online do not reveal any reliable sources. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 14:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to the anime/manga. This WP:FANCRUFT belongs on Fandom, not Wikipedia. Zero reception/analysis, just a plot summary.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Black Clover characters#Yuno Grinberryall per nom and Piotrus; this article has no sources and is purely fancruft copied from Fandom with no real-world reception or notability. Link20XX (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Black Clover characters#Yuno Grinberryall per above comments. Xexerss (talk) 02:47, 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. Salvio ^giuliano 18:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyaw Min Than (footballer)[edit]

Kyaw Min Than (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Aware of challenge of sourcing in Myanmar, but there's barely a claim to notability here let alone evidence thereof. A BEFORE shows nothing else to add from RS Star Mississippi 13:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Star Mississippi 13:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't see anything besides routine coverage, doesn't meet GNG. Feel free to ping if more sources are found. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 12:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of in-depth WP:RS coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:07, 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 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 18:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilesh Sheshmani Dubey[edit]

Akhilesh Sheshmani Dubey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they meet notability. Lots of mentions, but no in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Law, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 13:51, 26 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 23:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ystalyfera transmitting station[edit]

Ystalyfera transmitting station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Another small television relay station, fails WP:GNG. No sources cited, external links just go to general lists of such relay stations. There are many thousands of these in the world and WP:NOTDIR of radio transmitters and frequencies. See:

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flint_television_relay_station
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bala_transmitting_station
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Burry_Port_television_relay_station

for rationale and precedent. Flip Format (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, United Kingdom, and Wales. Flip Format (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the same reason I gave on the Halifax article. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Redirect to Carmel transmitting station to preserve article history. It's a relay of Carmel but no list of relay stations included in that article. WP:NOTDIRECTORY territory. No assertion of notability. Doesn't need a separate article. Rupples (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Oppose redirect, very unlikely search term on en.wp.  // Timothy :: talk  22:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A redirect without deletion to Carmel transmitting station is supported by the example of Cwm Twrch transmitting station in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cwm Twrch transmitting station (2nd nomination). Doesn't necessarily set a precedent but thought I'd point it out. Rupples (talk) 23:43, 2 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 delete. I will note that, during this AfD, GMA Regional TV News was created as a redirect Salvio ^giuliano 18:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regional TV News[edit]

Regional TV News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Another contested redirect. Right now there are zero independent, reliable, secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Would have restored the redirect, but that's no longer an option. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of programs broadcast by GTV (Philippine TV network)#News: as WP:ATD. SALT if possible. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC) Delete per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Such a generic television newscast name, it's not limited to the Philipines for sure, and for a generic regional newscast to boot. Nate • (chatter) 21:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A newscast name like that pretty much says "run-of-the-mill" right off the bat; it would probably be very difficult to find any GNG-satisfying sources, regardless of whether they even exist. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NTVNATL. No good hits in GNews archives as well. I would have suggested a redirect to List of programs broadcast by GTV (Philippine TV network)#News had the this entry was less generic. --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Don't redirect - this name is incredibly generic (most countries in the world have some form of "regional TV news") and it is likely to simply confuse. It's like having an article called "Weather Forecast" which discusses a single TV station's weather forecast. Flip Format (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be the contrarian here and go with a redirect (and rename). I've seen this a couple of times on weekends, and I don't think it's even referred to by the network as simply "Regional TV News", but as "GMA Regional TV News". That said, not notable enough to merit its own articles as mentioned by the others; however, a redirect (with the "GMA" prefix) is better given the circumstances. --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but create redirect with "GMA" prefix - because "Regional TV News" have generically used in most countries, but with the "GMA" prefix it would be the preferrable option. I'll take this to WP:AFC/R and create the "GMA Regional TV News" redirect, which will target to GTV's program list.

  2600:1700:9BF3:220:90D2:16C2:EFDB:E987 (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as GMA Regional TV News and redirect to List of programs broadcast by GTV (Philippine TV network)#News since it's the appropriate title. Fails WP:NTV per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 22:40, 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 Minecraft#Gameplay as an WP:ATD Salvio ^giuliano 18:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enderman[edit]

Enderman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Zero real-world notability. Delete as per WP:NOTPLOT. Would have redirected, but that is no longer an option since the redirect was challenged. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (restore redirect) as a non-notable video game character failing WP:GNG with insufficient reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. There are some random sources like [45], but not enough to write an encyclopedic article. There are a ton of source that mention the mob, but none are in-depth or focused on the mob itself. Especially, not something usable for WP:WAF. As it stands, it's WP:ALLPLOT and WP:GAMECRUFT. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 10:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect To Minecraft#Gameplay - simply not enough significant coverage. However, it is absolutely a believable search term and the redirect it formerly as should be restored. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. As far as real world relevance goes this character doesn't qualify for its own article. It is very relevant to minecraft though, so we should redirect it. Blitzfan51 (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable enough, however I do think that an article including a list of Minecraft mobs should be created. If such an article existed, I would propose this be merged with that one, however as no such article currently exists, I am voting for delete. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails notability ImperialMajority (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC) sock strike ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect – Lacks SIGCOV, and the only source in the article being a user-generated wiki is telling as to its notability. DecafPotato (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Zxcvbnm above. I did a search for more detailed sources and only found Wikis that really covered it in the level of detail needed for it to be kept. Nomader (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, Wikis aren't reliable sources which seems like it's all that's there. If people really want to know more about the Enderman they can go to the unofficial official Minecraft Wiki. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. 2001:4455:6F5:7C00:A44E:A2CB:D9FA:3431 (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm fairly sure this is notable. --2007Gtbot (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To claim something is notable, you have to show how it satisfies WP:GNG. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 16:46, 2 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:17, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Pablo Medina de los Santos[edit]

Juan Pablo Medina de los Santos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unclear notability, old person and father of two politicians. I can't find mentions of him, even less reason to see why he merits an article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 12 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!} 05:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 09:50, 26 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Berry Campbell Gallery[edit]

Berry Campbell Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Art gallery doesn't seem to meet WP:NORG - in-depth coverage is largely in non-independent sources such as interviews of articles based on press releases. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:03, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I did find these in a quick search (One appears to be in use in the article already):

  "The Gallerist Duo Championing Unsung Postwar Artists". Surface. September 10, 2020. Retrieved March 12, 2023.

  "Stories From PAFA: Elizabeth Osborne Retrospective At Berry Campbell Gallery". Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts. September 7, 2022. Retrieved March 12, 2023.

There might be more with a more in-depth search. Silverseren^C 21:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately those references are not very independent - the first one is mostly based on an interview with the founders, and a large portion of the second was written by the gallery. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article. Prior to nominating it for deletion, on 25 February 2023, MrsSnoozyTurtle attempted to draftify it. Two editors advised her that the subject was notable. The next day, she left a note on my Talk page accusing me of sockpuppetry. When I asked what prompted the communication, she refused to answer. For the record I have only ever edited from this account.

On 23 January 2023 the subject of the article was connected to Wikidata item Q116312206. This alerted me to the existence of the Wikidata project. Since then I have been studying it so I can contribute to the knowledge graph around the artists of 20th century modernism. The galleries are crucial for historical and knowledge-graph reasons, as they maintain exhibition records, indicate what artists are affiliated, and (its use for commercial purposes notwithstanding) produce important scholarship like the material that MrsSnoozyTurtle seems to be disdaining above as "press releases." (I assume "interviews of articles based on press releases" is a typo.) Recommendation is keep. ImmovableObject (talk) 16:04, 13 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!} 05:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 09:50, 26 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.