< May 22	May 24 >

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

The result was redirect‎ to Gregorian (band). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once in a Lifetime (Gregorian song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG, with no in-depth coverage in the media. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gregorian (band): Found no evidence of notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gregorian (band). No SIGCOV, fails WP:NSONG. Has no individual notability. ULPS (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above. Lacks sufficient coverage to justify a stand alone article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 04:36, 26 May 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allen H. Greenfield[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Careful research will show that all of this writer's books are self-published; it will also show that most of the apparent third-party sources are also self-published. Neither the subject nor any of his books are notable. Skyerise (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: on attempting to notify the article creator, I discovered that the article was originally written by a sockpuppet of banned puppetmaster Ekajati. Skyerise (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As far as I can tell, both IllumiNet Press and Luxor Press are imprints of the subject. Searching for his books on Amazon and Google Books will reveal that they are really Lulu.com published. Skyerise (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More detail: this seems to be an independent and complete up-to-date list of the subject's works. This site has conscientiously labelled them all "Independently published". Skyerise (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might have a shot under AUTHOR, there are several books showing up in Gscholar. If they're all vanity press publications, likely nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Talbot[edit]

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

Likely autobiographical vanity article. As List of Clipper Round the World Yacht Race results shows, there have been some 120 skippers in the race between 1998 and 2020, and there are only four with biographies including luminaries such as Alex Thompson. Nothing in Talbot's career makes him more special than the others.

References are either from Clipper Ventures' website (the company he was employed by) or The Telegraph, regurgitating Clipper Ventures' press releases. The last two references are local newspaper coverage and being runner-up in a non-notable award. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with reality television shows, we used to include runners-up, but with those and similar sporting endeavors and competitions, we have in the past 10-12 years only tended to keep the winner, or at most the top three. There is no evidence that this person passes WP:GNG by way of WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 23 May 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 23:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Kind[edit]

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

BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article have no information about the subject, so this is an unsourced BLP. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and in-depth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 23:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:27, 23 May 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 Big King#BK XXL. ✗plicit 23:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BK XXL[edit]

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

Fails GNG and article makes no effort to explain why product offering is notable. Most references are to first party nutritional guides. Skipple ☎ 19:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Skipple ☎ 19:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Middle East, and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion due to previous bundled AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not exactly a Big Mac or Whopper, don't see why it needs its own article. AryKun (talk) 06:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this can be retained as a standalone article. However, a redirect to Big King#BK XXL is plausible. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:58, 24 May 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Curve (shopping mall)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was almost 15 years ago, and I believe we're now more strict on shopping mall notability. Could not find significant coverage, many of the sources identified in the last AfD are now dead links. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Malaysia. • Gene93k (talk) 05:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found some sources about the subject[1][2][3][4][5], but I haven't really made an opinion about whether they meet WP:SIGCOV, as they are more focused on events there. If we include the next-door eCurve (which I don't think is part of the article), there would be a lot more sources. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 00:04, 24 May 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 23:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Antibes Yacht Show[edit]

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

Declined prod. The only sources I found find were from yachting/boating media, lacking independent sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, one could conduct a variety of searches, but I do not see much of significant coverage in reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs) 18:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 23 May 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 23:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What Will Fat Cat Sit On?[edit]

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

~~Non notable, apparently fails GNG Zhoushou (talk)~~ 20:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two reviews by reliable publications and one by a public library (all three are already in the article) add up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG from the sources already present in the article. pburka (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Aside from the reviews already in the article, there is also this one from Kirkus Reviews. All together, this is a pass of WP:NBOOK. Rorshacma (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NB — Maile (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG Linda (talk ... stalk!) 00:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: three national-level sources giving WP:SIGCOV in article: Publishers Weekly might be dubious as it links to pages selling the book (and so presumably earns commission), but see also this review in School Library Journal. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CU note Nominator has been checkuser blocked.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NBOOK and clearly has enough sources. Archrogue (talk) 17:08, 26 May 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 23:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Nobiraki[edit]

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

BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Primary, database page	1. "Dylan Nobiraki". So FC. Retrieved May 23, 2023.
Database	2. ^Jump up to:a b Dylan Nobirakiat Soccerway
Primary	3. ^Jump up to:a b c "Kaya FC-Iloilo Bring in Foreign Reinforcements". So FC February 16, 2023. Retrieved May 23, 2023.
Database entry in article, no SIGCOV	4. ^ "Sapporo Otani High School soccer team OB who will compete in the 2023 season" .sapporo -otani.com.Retrieved 23 May 2023 .
Routine sports news, nothing SIGCOV about subject	5. ^ Jump up to:a b "[Asia] Dylan Nokai, our support player, signs with Kaya FC, the leader of the 1st division in the Philippines! From college soccer to ACL stage! ! ".europlus.jp. Retrieved 23 May 2023.
Database page	6. ^ "Player introduction! No.37" . dsoccer.nuhw.ac.jp . Retrieved 23 May 2023 .
Game results, nothing about subject	7. ^ "Match result". Japan Football Association. 1 January 2023.
Game results, nothing about subject	8. ^ "Match result". Japan Football Association. 1 June 2022.
Primary	9. ^ "Kaya-Iloilo 2-3 Dynamic Herb Cebu" . So FC February 19, 2023 . Retrieved May 23, 2023 .
Routine sports news, nothing SIGCOV about subject	10. ^ "Kaya fires four past Mendiola, Cebu stumble against Stallion". pfl.org.ph. Retrieved May 23, 2023.

BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 20:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 12:49, 30 May 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 23:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reshape Reason[edit]

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

Failing WP:NALBUMS#1. I'm unable to find suitable sources to justify keeping them. SWinxy (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the two other albums by Elitist for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. SWinxy (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three: Found no evidence of notability for any of these releases, nor the band behind them (now PROD'd). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:36, 23 May 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 23:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orkhan Farajov[edit]

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

Can't find anything satisfying WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC in my searches. Best sources seem to be SIA, a trivial mention, Sportal (translated), a basic transfer rumour with no depth, and [https://qol.az/?name=xeber&news_id=137787 QOL, a mention in a squad list. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 12:43, 30 May 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 23:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dávid Gyenes[edit]

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

Played 3 games as a professional about a decade ago then disappeared. Best sources that I can find in the news are Blikk, which mentions him twice in passing, and Nemzeti Sport, a basic transfer announcement. All the other hits seem to just be match reports and stats sites. There is an ice hockey player with the same name but, according to Erste Liga, the ice hockey player was born in Miskolc in 1992, so is clearly not the same person. I can't find any coverage on the footballer that would be sufficient for WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:26, 26 May 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 23:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karawita Central College[edit]

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

Schools need to pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG or, preferably, both. I can find no evidence that this school meets criteria. I have tried searching in English and also "කරවිට මධය මහ වදුහල", both of which just yielded social media and other unreliable sites. I did find School 3411 but the content appears to be written by someone from the school so it isn't independent. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NSCHOOL, lacks any independent reliable sources or references. Dan arndt (talk) 05:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced and fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parade, Leamington Spa[edit]

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

This page relies heavily on one single source with no real WP:Notability and WP:Original research is more prevalent. I propose deletion of the article and maybe this all being moved to the Leamington Spa article? DragonofBatley (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it has some interesting features and has been the subject of some fairly famous paintings, photographs and images. However I think to be considered notable it would need to be the main feature in a substantial RS. Which I'm not seeing. JMWt (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I have additional book references for it. G-13114 (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that a large chunk of the article, present since its 2nd edit six years ago in 2017, was removed as "Remove unsoured material" 2 minutes before this AfD nomination. Yes it was unsourced, but it had never been tagged as such and appeared to be plausible information and of interest to readers. It is so much more constructive to add a ((cn)) tag and prompt other editors into sourcing the material, rather than just chucking it out. PamD 14:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't exactly call that a "large chunk of the article", but rather a "misconceptions" section which looks entirely original research. I lived in this town at one point in my life, and I never heard of anyone having such a misconception and it would certainly need citing. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But I suggest it would have been better practice to tag it as needing citation, rather than just remove it on one editor's "I don't like this" decision. This particular editor tends to remove other editors' contributions like this quite often. Once removed, the content is lost. If tagged, it can prompt the editor who wrote it, or others interested in the article, to find sources and improve the encyclopedia. PamD 20:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this should be improved rather than deleted. G-13114 (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And this editor at times tends to WP:Stalk me and my page and my edits and they go on about me removing things. I'm their favourite chew toy for when their bored like they made clear on my talk page with the captions

"For some reason I wondered what you are doing these days and this was the first edit I looked at. I hope you're editing carefully - I won't look further as I've got other things to do today." - so yeah, I'm their favourite chew toy to give a hard time to. If that isn't stalking I don't know what is. DragonofBatley (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to Leamington Spa. There's already some content about this there, and it can be covered there fine. Reywas92^Talk 02:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I just did a quick Google search for "parade leamington spa listed building", and immediately found eight individual Grade II listed buildings on the street - there may be more, that was just from the first page of Google results. I don't happen to own a copy of the Pevsner guide for Warwickshire, but I would be amazed if it did not contain substantial coverage of a street with so many listed buildings on it, both in terms of description and history, which could be used to expand the article. This article wants expanding, not deleting. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Per Girth Summit. Streets can be notable, and plenty of evidence that this one is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere are plenty of sources as to its notability, e.g.[6]Esemgee (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sourcing is available to meet WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noam Shavit[edit]

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

Youth player, false claim of winning the Israeli title when he wasn't in the first team this season, sources are databases. Draftified, but moved back by creator without addressing the issues and with false claims of "Perform requested move, see talk page". Fram (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Israel. Fram (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough for a WP article at this time. gidonb (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As this was so quickly moved back to the main space in total disregard to the pupose of draft, recommending a WP:SKYBLUELOCK. gidonb (talk) 13:41, 27 May 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 23:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iran Aseman Airlines destinations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations

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

Fails the 2018 RFC on airline designation lists which decided that exhaustive lists of airline destinations are not suitable content for Wikipedia. Per the subsequent AN discussion these should be nominated for deletion in orderly fashion.

Briefly, this is a failure of WP:NOT, particularly WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. The WP:NOT issue by itself is sufficient to warrant deletion, but if further reasons are needed it is a clear failure of WP:CORP since the only sources provided are the company's own website and a 404 link to a blog.

I am not WP:BUNDLING these nominations as I think it highly likely that unbundling would be requested. FOARP (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Lists, and Iran. FOARP (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator and per WP:IINFO. Nythar (💬-🍀) 02:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hopefully someone will vote here, but if they don't, I guess I should say that I don't agree that this article should be ineligible for soft-deletion. This is because:

The article was only nominated for deletion once, in 2015, as part of a mass-nomination of 400 articles. The merits of this particular article were not discussed in that AFD.
The 2015 AFD was eight years ago.
There is a policy consensus at VPP in 2018 against this article. This should at least count as an additional vote against it if one is missing.
There have been a series of AFDs closed recently (see here for a list) in which articles basically the same as this one have been deleted, and the consensus of the 2018 VPP discussion has been re-affirmed in those discussions. FOARP (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per clearly violating the 2018 consensus and existing precedent and policy. JoelleJay (talk) 16:38, 26 May 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. Participants determined that having a single list of all lip syncs across all seasons and all versions of Drag Race amounts to fancruft and an indiscriminate collection of information. ✗plicit 14:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Drag Race lip syncs[edit]

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

This has been moved from draft space despite opposition at the talk page here at Talk:List of Drag Race lip syncs#Move to draft space and at Talk:Drag Race discography#Fork out lip syncs? by myself and JuanGLP. This is WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:FANCRUFT. All the information is contained the individual season pages, this topic is not notable in its own right for an encyclopedic article and belongs on a fansite. --wooden superman 14:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your reasoning. Wikipedia has many lists with info presented on other pages, such as List of Drag Race contestants, lists of episodes, etc. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Personally I think List of Drag Race contestants is also possibly a fancrufty fork from the season articles and could also be considered for deletion. --wooden superman 14:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does Wikipedia have any lists of episodes, contestants/participants, awards, etc. All of these pages have information presented elsewhere on the site but are helpful because they group details scattered across many articles. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't remotely helpful or encyclopedic, it's just a long list of performances on one segment of a TV show. Would listing every performance on every episode of Top of the Pops be suitable for an encyclopedia? Or every single guest artist to appear on Late Show with David Letterman? It's WP:LISTCRUFT. --wooden superman 14:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there were sources covering Letterman's best guests, how they were chosen, etc, then perhaps. You're minimizing the importance/role of lip syncs and how much coverage they have received. Doesn't matter, we can go back and forth all day, time for others to weigh in. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well having a list of lip-syncs does seem "unnecessary" and feels like a WikiFandom article, and the list is not even close to complete.

The list of contestants present the contestants of the franchise, and some milestones like Jujubee competing four times or Jimbo/The Viv competing in All Stars US. The discography still exist since some singles states their charts and present soundtrack albums. The list of episodes are okay because basically every series in Wikipedia have a list of episodes (if they got more than two to three seasons.)

For the list of lip-syncs, it would be confusing since each adaption will have a huge chunks of lip-syncs, and some lip-syncs have 2 to 4 people lip-syncing for their lives, the crown, or their legacy.

— JuanGLP (talk/contribs) 14:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and this list could similarly note which artists have been featured the most, which contestants have performed the most, etc. I think nice summaries for each series would be great. Yes, the list is incomplete but that has nothing to do with notability or appropriateness. I was hoping editors would get a bit more time to expand the list, but here we are and perhaps an early AfD is good because the community can now decide if the list is worth expanding. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But this is the kind of minutiae that is only of interest to a limited number of readers, this is what is meant by unencyclopedic WP:FANCRUFT. It's the kind of thing that belongs on rupaulsdragrace.fandom.com, not here. --wooden superman 14:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've said this multiple times now. We get your stance. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pot/kettle. --wooden superman 14:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I see the list and they have nothing about who won or who lost, which they (the reader) would have to go visit that one specific season to know who won the lipsync. — JuanGLP (talk/contribs) 14:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we could easily color code the cells of winner(s). Problem solved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't encyclopedic! We are not making a fansite! --wooden superman 14:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then what's the point of having a section about the lipsyncs from a specific season? If we kept this list, then we would have to delete the "Lipsyncs" section from every season of the franchise and its color code, in order to keep the list. — JuanGLP (talk/contribs) 14:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense if it's pertinent information discussed within the context of the season article. However, we shouldn't have an article consisting solely of a WP:CFORK of these segments. --wooden superman 15:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The season articles have tables which display more detailed information than just the lip syncs winners, such as how many times they placed in the bottom before being eliminated. This list wouldn't need so much detail. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources
https://www.billboard.com/lists/drag-race-lip-sync-for-your-life-season-15-ranked/ https://www.pride.com/drag-queens/drag-race-best-lip-syncs https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/originals/shantay-you-slay-here-are-the-best-lip-syncs-in-drag-race-herstory/ https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/09/08/rupauls-drag-race-how-lip-sync-songs-are-chosen/ https://screenrant.com/drag-race-best-lip-syncs-according-to-reddit/ https://www.buzzfeed.com/crawfordhorton/best-drag-race-all-stars-lip-syncs-of-all-time https://www.out.com/television/2022/8/23/how-drag-race-picks-songs-queens-will-lip-sync https://www.elitedaily.com/entertainment/most-memorable-lip-syncs-rupauls-drag-race https://www.queerty.com/10-best-lip-syncs-drag-race-season-14-ranked-20220422 https://www.papermag.com/rupauls-drag-race-lip-sync-2651144298.html https://xtramagazine.com/culture/drag-race/top-10-drag-race-lip-syncs-2021-214473 https://theconversation.com/rupauls-drag-race-and-lip-syncing-a-once-controversial-practice-is-no-longer-taboo-166473 https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/06/drag-lip-sync-history-queen-king-performance.html

Sources

Delete list of everyone around the world on every season of the show that lip synchs? That's more trivia than encyclopedic. I can't see the utility of having such a list. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We could fork out lists for specific series if this page gets too long. In fact, I'd prefer to have lists for each series (like we have for episode lists). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:LISTCRUFT: "In particular, if X is an encyclopedic topic, the X page should not consist only of a "list of X", in effect ostensively defining the topic. Effort should be made to write an article which verifiably defines and characterizes the topic first." This fails the first part of that (it doesn't even have a lede!), so it shouldn't be an article. It definitely feels like WP:FANCRUFT to me. My guess is that important aspects (just the "important aspects!) of this content could merged to either the main TV series article or to the list of contestants article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The same content is available on each seasons' article (e.g. RuPaul's Drag Race (season 1). This is a non-notable cross categorisation. Ajf773 (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems unnecessary duplication of content listed in the Drag Race series articles. Checked a few to make sure and the detail is presented in a similar format. See no reason for combining them in this list. Rupples (talk) 23:14, 29 May 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 14:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hoipolloi[edit]

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

Longstanding tags for multiple issues including COI editing over many years. I see some references which seem to mostly focus on Shôn Dale-Jones so unless anyone can find something that meets the notability standards, I suggest delete and/or merge. JMWt (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, United Kingdom, and Wales. JMWt (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. Most of the refs (mostly dead now) were to their own webpage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:59, 23 May 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 nomination withdrawn‎ by the nominator.

The Daily Campus[edit]

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

Not notable. Advertising by people who work for The Daily Campus. [7] Chances last a finite time (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Organizations, and Connecticut. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not agree with the assertion of advertising. It's a fairly prominent entity at UConn with its share of history and controversy. 69.125.1.183 (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WP:GNG and is just pure advertising, could be G11'able. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 14:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Keep. The article just needs a little rewrite, then it's all fine. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 14:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wesoree, Did you even google search it?~~ — Jacona (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In one minute of google searchland, came up with plenty of WP:SIGCOV including [8], [9], [10]. There's lots more, but this obviously meets WP:GNG. This newspaper is 127 years old. The article may not be great, but that's no reason for deletion, it's reason to improve it. Jacona (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Merge with University of Connecticut#Student organizations; only RS seems to be the Hartford Courant. Jacona, please don't badger !voters; if you find RS, add them to the article. Miniapolis 14:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Asking one question is hardly badgering. Please feel free to add RS to the article, your help in building the encyclopedia will be greatly appreciated!. Jacona (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added some, including items Jacona listed above. – .Raven ^.talk 16:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind. We should Merge with University of Connecticut#Student organizations. Chances last a finite time (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chances last a finite time: Do you want to withdraw this nomination and replace the AFD tag with a merge tag? ~Anachronist (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we not want to have that debate here? Chances last a finite time (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're the nominator. It's your prerogative to withdraw the nomination if nobody agrees with deletion. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want to delete a lot of the article and merge some of it. Do I need to debate that here? Chances last a finite time (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete a lot of the article" is a different matter than deleting the article outright. If you believe there should be an article at all, you should withdraw the deletion nomination. WPscatter ^t/_c 17:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the deletion nomination. Chances last a finite time (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge but it needs massive paring down of completely unsourced sections. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... or to find and cite sources for them. – .Raven ^.talk 15:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the state's largest daily college newspaper, over 120 years old, with multiple other newspapers either reporting on it, citing its reporting, or reprinting its text verbatim (e.g. editorials), is clearly found notable by the press. – .Raven ^.talk 15:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems as though there's enough notability for an article, but I agree it has to be pared down and rewritten almost entirely.

WPscatter ^t/_c 17:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources identified by Jacona show a clear WP:NORG pass, and there are ample others. The Hartford Courant, Connecticut's newspaper of record, alone has at least half a dozen articles focusing specifically on the paper. Newspapers.com archives turn up plenty just under its current name:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Many student newspapers that are far smaller/newer have survived AfD. The nominator is a new user, but they should be aware that conflict of interest editing is not a valid reason to delete an article like this one that is not at all borderline on notability. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 05:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: Although, to be careful, the Hartford Courant has been the publisher of the Daily Campus since Fall 2016, as indicated in the infobox, so that may not be a truly WP:INDEPENDENT source. Good thing the three refs you give are from before that date. – .Raven ^.talk 19:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I hadn't seen that. Good observation, but even for post-2016 coverage, I would be surprised if there were any independence issues. "Publisher" in this sort of instance often just means "printer", i.e. The Daily Campus pays the Courant to print it each week, but the Courant doesn't look at the content, and any Courant reporters writing about The Daily Campus would be on the other side of its editorial firewall. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I personally agree with that likelihood, but am aware that not everyone may; IOW, this is an area of possible, arguable challenge. – .Raven ^.talk 21:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs a lot of cleanup and citation work, but meets WP:NORG criteria, with historical significance and extensive coverage in other newspapers and secondary sources. Topshelver (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
just here to say that i've deleted much of the unsourced garbage. lettherebedarklight 晚安 06:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it's large enough to expand. I'm not familiar with it, so if it's not large enough, merge instead. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Students, UConn Blamed For Paper's Poor Quality". Hartford Courant. 4 August 1961. p. 11.
^ "Daily Campus Has New Offices, Finances". Hartford Courant. 17 September 1972. p. 14. Retrieved 24 May 2023.
^ "'Daily Campus' Uncertain of Funds". Hartford Courant. 8 February 1972. p. 57. Retrieved 24 May 2023.
^ "Study Unit Cites Weaknesses In UConn Paper". Meriden Journal. 3 August 1961. p. 2. Retrieved 24 May 2023.

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, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hewa Bora Airways destinations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations

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

A 2018 RFC decided that exhaustive lists of airline destinations were not appropriate content for Wikipedia. A subsequent AN discussion concluded that these articles should be AFD'd in an orderly manner with a link to the original RFC discussion and that it should be taken into account in any close. Hence here I am.

This article is exactly the kind of article the 2018 RFC decided against - it is an exhaustive listing of every route that was served by a particularly airline. It is a clear failure of WP:NOT, since it is a complete listing of all the services offered by a commercial enterprise, making it a directory or catalogue listing. We could also talk about WP:NOTTRAVEL since this is essentially a travel-guide.

Even if the RFC and NOT issues were somehow set to one side, the article would still have to pass WP:CORP. Since no sources at all are cited in the article, it does not. WP:BEFORE is not mandatory, especially where the failure of the article is of WP:NOT, but I carried out a search anyway and did not find anything that would meet the requirements of WP:CORP about the routes that Hewa Bora flew.

It has been asked why a bundled deletion of these airline destination lists is not made. WP:BUNDLE is only appropriate where bundling is likely to go unchallenged. I note that there have been at least three bundled deletions proposed of airline destination articles ( 2006, 2007, 2015) and in every instance bundling of the articles was challenged. Whilst these discussions have been superseded by the 2018 RFC which was at a higher WP:CONLEVEL, I think it highly likely that another bundled deletion would just result in the same challenges being made, though am happy to bundle in future if it becomes clearer that bundling will not be challenged. FOARP (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Lists, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. FOARP (talk) 13:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator and per WP:IINFO. Nythar (💬-🍀) 01:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hopefully someone will vote here, but if they don't, I guess I should say that I don't agree that this article should be ineligible for soft-deletion. This is because:

The article was only nominated for deletion once, in 2015, as part of a mass-nomination of 400 articles. The merits of this particular article were not discussed in that AFD.
The 2015 AFD was eight years ago.
There is a policy consensus at VPP in 2018 against this article. This should at least count as an additional vote against it if one is missing.
There have been a series of AFDs closed recently (see here for a list) in which articles basically the same as this one have been deleted, and the consensus of the 2018 VPP discussion has been re-affirmed in those discussions. FOARP (talk) 10:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per arguments above and that I have made at the other discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 16:41, 26 May 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 2023 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone. Since the content was already merged. Redirect is required for attribution and the same should probably be done for Group B. Star Mississippi 13:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I – Pool A[edit]

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

Group 1, Pool A, of the Europe/Africa zone, for the playoffs, of the 2023 Billie Jean King Cup. Fails GNG. Nothing shows notability for Pool A of Group 1 of the playoffs. This article is all stats, BEFORE only showed stats and promo routine news.

Redirect was disputed, but its not a good name for a redirect. Follows this closed AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I – Pool B // Timothy :: talk 09:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Egypt, Hungary, Latvia, Netherlands, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - seems to not be notable in its own right although it may have received significant coverage in one of the participating countries' media, such as Latvia or Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the content from 2023 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I – Pool B in to an article called 2023 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I per WP:ATD-M. Iffy★Chat -- 09:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Good info but should be merged as we did with Pool B. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The results about Pool B was not to merge, it was Delete. [11] // Timothy :: talk 22:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But in discussion with the closing admin and standard Tennis Project protocol, it was merged. We decided to leave it as a non-redirect but that could change in the future. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyunck(click): Just popping in: given that a merger took place, User:Fyunck(click)/2023 Billie Jean King Cup Europe/Africa Zone Group I – Pool B must be undeleted for attribution purposes. J947 † ^edits 08:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that to the administrator, but they didn't seem think it vital. It's attributed to the original removed page which can always be undeleted if someone asks. It would be better to be a redirect. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The names of such articles should also be reviewed. It's formatted like a proper name or an over-capitalized bunch of words, but doesn't appear in sources in such form. None of the cited sources mention the word "zone". I get that Europe/Africa is a zone, and that there are groups and pools, but how much of that should we be treating as proper names? Consider sources e.g. this one with "playing in group two of the tournament's Europe-Africa zone". Dicklyon (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per NOTDATABASE; this is too fine-scale an article to be encyclopedic. I don't see a need for anything more detailed than an article about the 2023 tournament; the stadiums for the round-robin group-stage matches are trivial detail. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 1 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gosu (manhwa)[edit]

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

Another contested draftification without improvement, and not a single in-depth reliable source. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In English I see few other sources that announce the anime being picked up like the one currently cited in article. In Korean, sources I see several during the run or at the end of the run of the manhwa are enough to pass WP:GNG. [12] [13] Working on draft could of been done, but I have no issue with it as a stub. WikiVirusC^(talk) 12:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the two Korean sources provided both look reliable and provide more detail into the manhwa. As there is no shown evidence of notability through English sourcing, this may regional notability. I would look for additional things via Japanese, Taiwanese, and Philippian sourcing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. CandyScythe (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn‎ per WP:HEY. I'm not overly thrilled with the sources I can see (they're just interviews and stats) but the number of offline or subscriber-only sources do seem to indicate that there is enough coverage to merit an article. Primefac (talk) 07:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Fetoai[edit]

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

Barely any coverage that I can find, and thus fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Rugby union, Australia, and New Zealand. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The crusade against sports continues while others skate by with a free pass. Are we going to see the same standards applied to academics and artists or are they worthy pursuits unlike the undignified practice of grown men chasing around after a ball. I've expanded the article to include coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sigh This is not a "crusade against sports". I came across the article, found no significant coverage, and nominated it for deletion. I would do the same if I came across an academic or an artist whose article was in a similar shape. Primefac (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Think enough has been found here to suggest a GNG pass for him. I imagine there will be more coverage out there if a further detailed search through Australian archives is done. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick ProQuest search results in 645 entries, so there's more than enough to justify WP:GNG, with references already in the article and the additional info here [14] and here [15], an editor interested in this subject could expand this one out to be a better stub. Storm machine (talk) 00:51, 25 May 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 12:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Cricket World Cup Qualifier warm-up matches[edit]

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

No need for a separate article for some matches that don't even have ODI status (the fact they don't have ODI status means they will likely get less coverage than a normal ODI match). We don't have separate articles for warm-up matches for more important events e.g. the Cricket World Cup, I believe a separate article was created for World Cup warm up matches a number of years ago, and had consensus to merge back in. There was a brief discussion at Talk:2023 Cricket World Cup Qualifier#Do we really need a separate page for warm-up matches in which two people objected to a future creation of this article, and nobody gave a reason why it needs to exist. Not a valid WP:SPLIT from a start class article, and I'm ambivalent to whether the content should be merged back or just straight deleted (since the matches are just a pre-cursor sideshow to the main qualifier). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's also an unattributed copy of text from the main article, which also violates Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Warm Up matches do not need their own article, the content is already being duplicated on the main article and a "Show/Hide" tag can be added.

Sputink (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete but think they shouldn't be on the main page as well (the main page is 2023 Cricket World Cup Qualifier not 2023 Cricket World Cup Qualifier and related matches that are played around it - they aren't part of the tournament and have no bearing on the outcome, they are just matches. If they need to appear it should be on individual country pages. It's just a whole lot of irrelevant stuff on a page that already includes a large amount of information. If they are included, then they presumably should be accounted for the in match counts, the venue lists, the match official used etc. 165.12.252.109 (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the same articles prior to previous Cricket World Cup Qualifier events:

Delete Agree there is no need for a seperate page. I believe it was created due to the precedent set with previous qualifiers, but as they dont have any status the articles are not needed. For what its worth, I also don't think they should be on the main article. There is a hide tag in place, but it is all still visible on the mobile app and adds clutter. Bs1jac (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for separate pages for any of these nominated. All can be included in the parent article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 20:50, 26 May 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 JKT48. ✗plicit 12:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rissanda Putri Tuarissa[edit]

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

There were no sources who specifically mentioned it, only sources who mentioned that he had been a member, only primary sources on the group's website MRZQ (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,please do not delete this article. Because I can tell that she’s one of famous Idol in Indonesia. Please keep this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.124.244.18 (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article JKT48 jot (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to JKT48: Per WP:BANDMEMBER, as they do not appear to be independently notable outside of the band. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Hey man im josh. Not notable enough for a standalone article. 116.92.232.6 (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn‎. I will merge to PlayStation Studios (non-admin closure) Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 04:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firewalk Studios[edit]

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

All the sources found only repeat the same information about its acquisition. There are not enough information on this studio to justify an entire article Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 10:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 10:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sony Interactive Entertainment per WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I will withdraw this and do a merge instead. Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 04:35, 24 May 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. The single "keep" !vote is not based on any policy or guideline. ✗plicit 12:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akorede Alli[edit]

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

One indie film does not meet WP:FILMMAKER Cabayi (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Royalty and nobility, Nigeria, California, and New York. Cabayi (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep: my vote : he's a very well known personality. Portwoman (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Portwoman, this is a discussion, not a vote. Do you have any significant coverage in reliable, verifiable, independent sources to support your assertion that he is well known? Or, more to the point, that he is notable? I was unable to find any when researching before this discussion. Cabayi (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. All of the sources cited in the article are interviews and aren't independent of him. One of the sources called him a "seasoned" director without giving evidence of this. All of the sources are interviews about the subject talking about a single film that doesn't meet any criterion outlined in WP:NFILM. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He fails WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:FILMMAKER. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There is strong consensus with valid arguments, and the nomination statement is erroneous. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hélène Jawhara Piñer[edit]

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

Self-promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuligo septica (talk • contribs) 09:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, France, and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: no obvious evidence of self promotion or other COI, the article is well referenced to reliable secondary sources, and a basic search easily turns up more, so clearly passses WP:BASIC. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it appears WP:BASIC notability is supported for her work as a scholar, writer, and chef, e.g. "Hélène Jawhara Piñer is a Sephardic cookbook author with a PhD in medieval history and the history of food who's been recognised and awarded by a number of organisations, including most recently the Society for Crypto-Judaic Studies, for her engagement with Sephardic history research." (BBC, 2022); articles about and reviews of her books e.g. Sephardi: Cooking the History, Recipes of the Jews of Spain and the Diaspora, From the 13th Century to Today: LAT (2021), Forward (2021, "[she spent] six years researching the recipes of Iberian Jews of the Middle Ages"), Hadassah Magazine (2021), Jewish Book World (2021), SUR (2022); e.g. Jews, Food, and Spain: Jewish Book Council (Judges' remarks include "also as a chef, she brings that vast wealth of knowledge and years of experience in the kitchen to her enlightening historical study"); event announcement: UPenn (2023) "This book was finalist of the Jewish Book Awards in the “Sephardic Culture” category, in 2023." While the article could benefit from some regular editing, available sources can help with the process. Beccaynr (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK3: Nomination rationale is completely erroneous. The main contributor appears to be a student in a Wikipedia-improvement project from the University of Pennsylvania; no self-promotion evident. Some cleanup is needed (e.g. to remove external links in inline text and replace talk announcements, primary sources, and sources for off-topic material that are not about the subject herself by better secondary sources) but that is not a valid deletion reason either. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm finding no evidence of self-promotion or conflict of interest. Fuligo septica, care to elaborate or provide evidence? I'm also a bit curious how you became such a fast learner since this nomination was you 85th edit ever. The article seems sourced. Meets WP:BASIC and probably also WP:NAUTHOR based on the reviews of her books, and one of her books was a finalist for a notable award, and apparently she has received other awards. Netherzone (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets NAUTHOR and is covered by popular press as well. --Mvqr (talk) 11:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SNOW. Easy pass of WP:NAUTHOR. pburka (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable author. Carrite (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is ample evidence here that the notability standard is met. A claim of "self-promotion" is insufficient to merit deletion. Alansohn (talk) 03:04, 28 May 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tax attribute[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No refs on the page (or at least none which show notability), seems to be a level of WP:OR and the page has been tagged as poorly written.

It seems to me like the most sensible option would be to merge with Tax accounting in the United States but I'm not sure about a redirect, as it appears that the term is used outside of the USA and as it stands the page doesn't mention other jurisdictions. JMWt (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and United States of America. JMWt (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also to add: little cleanup action has occurred since the last nom in 2010. I think it now needs attention. JMWt (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a specific taxation code definition, that has several meanings in various jurisdictions. This would need a clean up and re-write, but tax law isn't my forté. Oaktree b (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment feel free to merge anything that you think is mergeable, but I see no merit in this article as it stands. It reads like the personal statement of a tax advisor (i.e. I agree about OR), it plunges straight into a discussion of how to get out of paying tax in the US jurisdiction by exploiting a particular piece of tax legislation, without explaining what this has to do with the term "Tax attribute", and yes, those words are used for other concepts outside the US, which should at least be acknowledged. I'd have no objection to straightforward deletion. Elemimele (talk) 12:59, 23 May 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 Warhammer 40,000 novels#Ciaphas Cain. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaphas Cain[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page cites nothing but the fiction books in the series itself, seems to fail WP:GNG. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:FANCRUFT, the previous AfD in 2008 was closed by a non-admin as no consensus because of a WP:WP:SOURCESEXIST vote, after only one relist? Not sure what happened there, but anyway. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alex Stewart (writer). Not disagreeing that the original deletion close was crap (pretty standard for the time actually), but Ciaphas Cain is a popular character in the 40k fandom and one of Stewart’s most famous creations and thus a logical search term. Dronebogus (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Dronebogus, although I border on weak keep as well. Not only is Cain one of Stewart's most popular characters, it's also one of the few humorous series to emerge from the 40k setting. Intothat darkness 14:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s cool that it’s an official comedy series from 40k but that doesn’t make it notable Dronebogus (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does in the context of 40k, which has been noted in reviews of the series. Intothat darkness 13:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find any reviews? Dronebogus (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one. And another one. And this has a link to two reviews. That's just a quick Google search, and I don't know how many of those would necessarily be considered RS. But they all remark on how Cain stands out from the normal 40k fare. Intothat darkness 16:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Warhammer 40,000 novels#Ciaphas Cain where he is mentioned. Obvious search target, although does not seem to have reliable sources. No objection to recreation if sources are found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to come to some agreement on redirect target which seems to be the consensus view.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Warhammer 40,000 novels#Ciaphas Cain. Fails GNG, this seems like a more plausible redirect target. There is already a main article hatnote and the author is mentioned. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 12:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article doesn't have reliable sources, but a redirect is an easy compromise. Shooterwalker (talk)
Redirect to list of 40k novels. Better that than to have it disappear entirely, since Cain is rather unique in the 40k setting as noted in the reviews I linked above.Intothat darkness 13:41, 26 May 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 Don Cummings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bent But Not Broken[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. The only review in the article is a Kirkus Indie, which is a pay-for review program that does not demonstrate notability, see WP:KIRKUS. The only other review I can find is on the NY Journal of Books (Not to be confused with the much more famous NY Review of Books) which seems to be an obscure group blog. There's a passing mention of the book in this NYtimes article but it's not SIGCOV. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the very least this can be merged to the author as an ATD. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure the author is notable honestly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't even tagged for notability, so that's not a compelling reason to not merge content there. Jclemens (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not objecting to the redirect proposal for now, I'm just saying that I think there may be a case for AfDing the author too. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable author, and the only source is unreliable at best. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Don Cummings. While I found the same NYT article mentioned by the nom, I agree that it really is not significant coverage of the book itself. While the author's notability may be questionable, as long as that article is here, redirecting there would be the preferable WP:ATD. If the author's article is later brought to AFD itself and deleted, then the redirect would be deleted as well at that time. Rorshacma (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Don Cummings per Rorshacma's decision. CastJared (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron McCormack[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Almost all the sources provided are not about McCormack and fail WP:SIGCOV. Sources 9 and 11 are primary. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Northern Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. All the sources in the article are trivial passing mentions and/or associated with the subject. A search for sources outside the article (for example in newspapers in Northern Ireland [16][17] or Ireland [18][19]) return either nothing, false positives or similar passing mentions. It is also, frankly, hard to ignore the WP:COI/WP:SPA overtones in the articles creation and the WP:PROMO tone in the content. Guliolopez (talk) 11:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed with those above. The article is largely uncited, with no coverage of McCormack as an individual. Thus, it doesn't pass WP:GNG as there is no SIGCOV. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 12:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does seem a vanity article created by a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 24 May 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. In deep need of some sources but the UK Top 40 meets current notability requirements and not seeing reason to go against that after multiple relistings. Will add the chart source at least to start the references and hopefully we can get a bit more on heere. James of UR (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shimon (DJ)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, only WP:ROUTINE coverage Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is about the closest I can find [20], it's about an un-related robot. There is nothing for this person, who appears to not have done any music in at least a decade. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bona fide top 40 hit in the UK passes WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 05:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was not able to find any coverage of the subject in newspapers or books. I tried to search for him in Allmusic, which I remembered is an accepted source in some context, but his profile only has a list of songs, with no biography nor review to support the claims on the article. Searching in other sites from the aforementioned source lists did not get any useful results eithter.

While "reaching top 40 in U.K." mentioned above was certainly impressive, I'm not so sure about citing a group as evidence for an individual's notability. Even then, the problem with the sourcing still exist, and it'll seem that the only reasonable way to keep the article was to reduce it into one sentence: "Shimon Alcoby is a member of the group 'Shimon & Andy C'." Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not a group per se, it's a collaboration between Shimon and Andy C, two notable musicians. The Officialcharts listing solves the RS issue as it is an officially-published nationwide chart and satisfies the WP:V requirement for purposes of WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suvarnavathi Reservoir[edit]

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

Orphaned, possibly travel guide-like article with zero reliable (or even secondary) sources; fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILDING. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 05:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article was moved to Suvarnavathi River and expanded during the AFD (which is not prohibited), by me (see below). If outcome is "Keep", closer should put old AFD notices at Talk pages of both Suvarnavathi Reservoir (now a redirect with categories) and at Suvarnavathi River. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 02:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Karnataka. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 05:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment The dam is likely notable if it can be sourced. The article as it stands could jsut as well be TNTed. Mangoe (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The one listed reference on the article is unfortunately 404'd, and upon deeper searching, I was only able to find one potential source at https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/karnataka/2019/jun/10/two-reservoirs-in-karnataka-may-go-dry-as-tamil-nadu-builds-dams-1988203.html with a few mentions of the reservoir's depletion in 2019, but it focuses more on a government's dam-building rather than touching more on the article subject, so it would be hard to pass it off as anything but a trivial mention. Other sources only mention the Suvarnavathi River, which does not have its own article either. It does not seem like this article has any significant coverage beyond the one source. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 23:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as revised. I expanded the article with more references about the reservoir and dam (including a civil engineering assessment that the dam is likely to fail). Addressing the lack of an article about the bigger topic of the Suvarnavathi River, I chose to expand this article to be about both, and I moved the article to the bigger topic's name during the AFD. Moves during AFD are unusual and can be confusing, but are not prohibited. Here, I judge that the topic of the river is clearly notable, and that the reservoir and dam can be covered within that. The added reference might have sufficed for all to agree that the reservoir and dam topic is notable, but that evaluation is mooted by the editorial decision to cover that topic within the larger topic of the river. I hope this just saves time and bother, and leaves Wikipedia better off. (Pinging User:Liamyangll and User:Mangoe who may wish to comment upon the revised arrangement.) --Doncram (talk,contribs) 02:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sensible move by Doncram. Likely more sources in local language but what is included is sufficient to pass GNG. Rupples (talk) 00:11, 30 May 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. Definitely some clean up work that can be done and good points about duplication but reasonable arguments on both sides and multiple relists with no added clarity means defaulting to the status quo and keeping for now. James of UR (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR's 75 Greatest Drivers[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Lack of reliable, non-primary sources discussing this list of NASCAR drivers in detail. I found some secondary coverage regarding individual drivers being added to the list, but nothing on the list as a whole.

Note to those searching to also try "NASCAR's 50 Greatest Drivers" as that was what this list was known as from 1998 until this year. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, and Motorsport. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Similar pages exist (50 Greatest Players in NBA History and 100 Greatest NHL Players to name two). On a quick search, several sources discussing the list itself can be found. I can work on more sources, however deletion is uneccessary. Glman99 (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added several sources today, have a few more I need to look into. There is certainly even more coverage in newspapers from 1998, just need to track more down. Glman99 (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any WP:SUSTAINED coverage; all of the added sources are WP:ROUTINE coverings of either the initial 1998 unveiling or the 2023 expansion. There is nothing which indicates that this is anything more than a promotional list made up by the league to celebrate it's anniversaries. Who was on the "panel" and how were they selected? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems well sourced with citations in RS. I see no need to delete it. Could use more critical discussion on the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or switch to a template - The list has some importance and notability but I would say that the article should be deleted if it is to remain the way it looks now. However, I think we should keep it and make it like the List of members of the NASCAR Hall of Fame article where each driver and their career accomplishments are listed. If we don't expand the article, I think that the article should be deleted but we should create a template of the 75 Greatest Drivers and have it in the external links section of the articles of each driver on the list.Cavanaughs (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think adding information about accomplishments is a great suggestion. I considered this earlier as well! Glman99 (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Entirely subjective list based on a single source. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple sources on the page and similar "subjective" lists exist when made by other sports (NBA & NHL). Glman99 (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:CLN, AOAL for navigation. // Timothy :: talk 22:02, 27 May 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. Borderline keep consensus but I think more a no consensus after multiple listings, could use some expansion but for now defaulting to the status quo. James of UR (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Emirali[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails GNG. Mooonswimmer 01:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am arguing that the page should be kept. The article features a number of verifiable and reliable sources that provide significant coverage around Emirali or what he has said/done (PR Week, The i, Spear's Magazine etc). All of the sources are independent of the subject (barring The Times and City AM to demonstrate Emirali has written for these publications).

Though some of the sources are behind paywalls (PR Week), WP:Verifiability states that "sources shouldn't be rejected because they are difficult or costly to access".

The sources in the article also demonstrate the subject has attracted attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time WP:Sustained. The oldest article referenced was published in 2012 (Coventry Telegraph), the most recent in 2023 (Provoke Media).

There is no suggestion the article does not meet GNG as the sources are reliable, independent, non-self published etc. Given the seniority of who he has advised and regular media presence in UK, the article should be kept. PoliticsDex (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Declaration: I have worked on a previous draft of this article. I see no reason why this should be deleted. Sources are secondary, reliable, independent of the subject and provide significant coverage of the subject, in line with WP:GNG. The strongest sources, which the User above refers to are all owned by publishers which "have a professional structure for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments", as per WP:SOURCES. PR Week owned by Haymarket Media Group, The I is owned by DMGT, Spears is owned by Progressive Media International. The User who nominated this article for deletion has not stated how it fails GNG, but if they did perhaps it'd be useful for the purposes of this discussion? JoinFluffy250 (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Input from experienced editors would be helpful...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the sourcing in the article, the only source that could plausibly be significant is the article from PR Week. When I went to PRWeek, the site says that it epitomizes "the modern business publishing brand, spanning online, print, events and social media, incorporating a paid-for content strategy and gated website." So I am very skeptical that the PR Week article is an actual news article (and is intes paid-for content, or at best a dressed-up press release). The other sources do not contribute (much) to the notability of the subject. --Enos733 (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Enos733. I want to loop in User:Paul W as an experienced Wikipedia editor who can confirm PR Week is a legitimate source. In an earlier discussion I worked on for this article (it's since been re-submitted by another user), he wrote:
As a long-time UK-based PR practitioner, I can confirm that PR Week has a good reputation for clearly separating paid-for content and journalist-written editorial (I have even featured in its editorial and opinion pages myself once or twice). Like most news-based periodicals in every walk of life, its journalists will occasionally use content from press releases; at a PR industry event, I heard a past PR Week editor say they get 100s of releases weekly from which they select only a limited number based on what they judge genuinely newsworthy.

I have made some further edits to the article (adding Wikilinks, and a couple of new sources). From reviewing lots of new articles (I am a New Page Patroller), I think Emirali is borderline notable, but it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Paul W (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JoinFluffy250 (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canonchet, Rhode Island[edit]

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

Unsourced, could not find anything to establish this as a real or notable place. –dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Rhode Island. –dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may be notable for Canonchet Brook Preseve or Canonchet Farm. Here's a reference for the farm: https://canonchet.org/documents/2023_04_30_projo_john_kostrzewa_canonchet.pdf There's also a Lake Canonchet, U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 23, There are some archaeological sites nearby: Gage, Mary; Gage, James (2017-03-31). Land of a Thousand Cairns: Revival of Old style Ceremonies. Powwow River Books. ISBN 978-0-9816141-2-0. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I"m a bit confused. None of these sources refer to Canonchet as a town. Do we have a source that actually refers to Canonchet as it's defined in the article? Skipple ☎ 19:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hopkinton, Rhode Island#Geography. The mentions I've found of it are mostly tangential (see for example [21] [22] [23]) and it does not seem to meet WP:NGEO. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Canonchet (sometimes known as Cononchet) is a real place, and we know this because it had a station on the Wood River Branch Railroad (though this station wasn't actually in Canonchet, just nearby along the railroad's route. The book Two Tickets on the Wood River Train states on page 12 that it was a distinct village with several mills, near Ashville Pond. Based on my reading that meets NGEO. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is an odd one from the GNIS/topo point of view: the entry has the usual source statement for initial round spots, but in fact it does not appear on any topo until it was back-entered from GNIS sometime after 2010; this implies that it was entered from a gazetteer source. The topos and aerials in fact show nothing that could be mistaken for a town or village. The rail station tends to argue that this is just a general locale, being at some distance from the supposed spot, and we have learned over the years of reviewing these that station does not imply a settlement. We need a much better source than what we have, especially in light of the mapping evidence against the place. Mangoe (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're misstating my comment. The book specifically states that Canonchet was a distinct village with several mills. The station was a bit away from Canonchet because the railroad didn't directly enter the village itself, but a siding and later a station building were constructed to serve the mills there and any passenger or mail traffic. this source mentions Canonchet had two mills involved in producing "fishlines and twines". An article in The Day [24] describes Canonchet as a "town" and states it was heavily damaged by lightning in 1916. Given this verifiably was a populated place, deletion is not appropriate. It should be kept or redirected to Hopkinton. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: clearly notable, i did the work to improve the article, you heathens :)--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - THIS 1894 article deals with a legal battle to break up the Canonchet estate involving an ex-Governor of RI. It seems that Canonchet was the name of a tribal leader of one of the indigenous peoples and the name pops up in numerous contexts in Rhode Island newspapers. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:HEY. Djflem (talk) 20:03, 28 May 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 03:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Information Center[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG notability NM 03:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Islam, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 07:14, 23 May 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) 16:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of snooker player nicknames[edit]

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

Principally there is only a very weak case for it satisfying WP:LISTN. It's a tradition in snooker that each player has a nickname. There are some nicknames that are particularly noteworthy within the context of certain players (e.g. "Hurricane" Alex Higgins, "Whirlwind" Jimmy White, and of course "Rocket" Ronnie O'Sullivan). The snooker project now has a template (Template:Infobox snooker player/nicknames) that feeds these nicknames straight in the infobox. In that sense, this list is a duplication that serves very little encyclopedic purpose. Sometimes tabloid newspapers will publish the "top ten nicknames" or the ten funniest or whatever, but reliable sources (if you can call them that) generally regard such lists as trivia. Betty Logan (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, and Cue sports. Betty Logan (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Although there is a case for improvement, this would mean unnecessary duplication of data. This article has also been a target for vandalism in the past, which was one of the reasons the template (Template:Infobox snooker player/nicknames) was created.

Alan. AlH42 (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons outlined by Betty Logan and Alan above. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support the proposal to delete for the reasons already stated HurricaneHiggins (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
Just because some snooker players nicknames have been prone to vandalism in the past, that doesn't mean you should delete the page that lists all of them. That would be like saying "let's delete the list of top football goal scorers because we want to protect Ronaldo's Wikipedia page". Lots of people would appreciate the opportunity to see a list of these snooker nicknames together, hence this page existing for almost 20 years.

If we removed every Wikipedia page that had an occasional incorrect edit, then we'd have very little of this website left.

As for notability, there was a tweet just last month by World Snooker themselves - the organisers of the professional snooker tour - asking what Jak Jones' nickname should be.^[1] There have been BBC pieces about snooker nicknames done during the World Championships^[2], books^[3], it has been discussed on podcasts^[4], the idea of specifically having a "snooker nickname" was muted by BBC Sport^[5], there are specific articles detailing the history of snooker nicknames and how they were often used to promote events^[6], - this article includes the quote "As snooker boomed in the 1970s and 1980s, players were often synonymous with their nicknames and referenced as such in the written press and when being introduced to audiences". They are a massive part of the sport - with players being introduced by them before the World Championships, and referred to as such by the media during events^[7] - and have been for decades. They are far from trivial, and having a list of them is an important document of a major part of the sports' coverage. Heck, even one of the users above is called "HurricaneHiggins", which was Alex Higgins' nickname! SnookerLoopyOneFourSeven (talk • contribs) 04:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nicknames are important in the context of player coverage—that does not necessarily make them notable as an encylopedic topic in their own right. I agree with you that the amount of vandalism an article is subject to is not a consideration for whether an article should exist or not, but WP:LISTN is. To demonstrate that the article satisfies WP:LISTN it should be possible to show that snooker player nicknames have received significant coverage in reliable sources as a group, not just within the context of an article about the player. Nobody here is suggesting nicknames should be removed from player profiles—indeed, the snooker project has recently taken steps to integrate a player's nickname more seemlessly into the infobox on player articles. It's just a question of how they should be documented on Wikipedia—as the proposer of this nomination I think the proper place for this information is in the player articles, but I struggle to see the encyclopedic value of just having a list of nicknames. Betty Logan (talk) 08:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To SnookerLoopyOneFourSeven. If I gave the impression in my previous post that vandalism is a reason for deletion of this article, that was certainly not the intention. The main reason, as pointed out by Betty Logan is that it fails WP:LISTN. There is also the matter of duplication of data, since we now have a list in the new template which feeds directly into players' infoboxes. If this article is to remain, it would need to mirror the data in the template.

Alan. AlH42 (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The main reason this article should not exist is because it fails LISTN. People who wish to keep this page should demonstrate the topic as a whole has been covered significantly in multiple IRS sources that aren't just listicles or tabloids. JoelleJay (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Burrows (producer)[edit]

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

All references are either passing mentions or simple lists. Single in-depth citation is certainly not a reliable source. A before search reveals little. Fails GNG. - Skipple ☎ 02:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - Skipple ☎ 02:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I edited the article to remove name-dropping, repetition and WP:PEACOCK, etc. This person was given a producer credit on exactly one film, and an "associate producer" credit on another, which was a flop. He produced just one Broadway show (which ran for only 6 regular performances), two off-Broadway shows, one tour of an off-Broadway show (although none of the off-Broadway credits is verified) and later one regional theatre production. All of his other "producing" was as a "production executive". He was not a significant creator (only ever writing one short film). There is only one source cited for his producing, and it is from Patch.com. His ownership of the barbecue restaurant would also be, IMO, WP:MILL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:05, 24 May 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 02:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sopo FaKaua[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:GNG, only the last source passes WP:SIGCOV, and even that is debatable. Couldn't find any other sources online. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:25, 26 May 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 02:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raquel Romano[edit]

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

Just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maurício Guilherme Silva Jr., the article fails WP:N, WP:MINIMUM and another notability criteria. It's a clear case of WP:SPAM, created by an editor with a long history of WP:PAID and WP:SOAPBOX. None of the source are about the author, let alone being "significant coverage". Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 01:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Brazil. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 01:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 23 May 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.