< October 13	October 15 >

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 All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atsuko Natsume[edit]

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

Per IP request: Found no SIGCOV from a Google search; does not seem to be a notable character 2605:B40:1303:900:6888:4C67:7744:1DC3 (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC) Submitted by UtherSRG (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Anime and manga. UtherSRG (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku, fails WP:GNG, nothing in my BEFORE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku. Couldn't find any significant coverage, although some may exist in Japanese sources I was unable to check. Mooonswimmer 15:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Doctor Who supporting characters. This article can be turned into a Redirect after a Merge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abby (Doctor Who)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A minor spin-off companion from Doctor Who. A BEFORE turns up no sources that indicate separate notability, and the current sourcing state is remarkably weak. She's listed at the Companions article, so a redirect there could work per ATD, but I just don't see her having enough to justify a full article. Pokelego999 (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Pokelego999 (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and redirect to List of Doctor Who supporting characters § with the Fifth Doctor. This article fails to establish why the subject is notable. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why blank..? It is not going to hurt anyone seeing this information... DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failing WP:GNG. It's a really unlikely search term, but I suppose you could still push for a redirect. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Doctor_Who_supporting_characters. Mooonswimmer 15:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. I would advocate to keep, but this way someone can recreate this article when there are sources DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:48, 21 October 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!} 07:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danila Medvedev[edit]

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

Merge to KrioRus, the subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG himself, and WP:SIGCOV is difficult to obtain. Medvedev appears to be mentioned in some books, but he is not the subject of them, nor did he write them. 30Four (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree this doesn't meet notability, but I don't really like the idea of merging or redirecting to KrioRus. According to that article, 11 people are listed as founders rather loosely, so I don't see anything that really has to have this subject as a redirect. Probably best to delete and recreate if they ever do gain more notability whether through that company or otherwise. KoA (talk) 03:57, 16 October 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Racine Kamatari[edit]

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

Article about a Rwandan rapper that does not meet WP:NMUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Sources used are blogs or music downloads sites which dont count towards WP:RS. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Rwanda. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: he has a good career as a rapper he has over 600 songs and being reported by The New Times is very remarkable. I think this hinges on if The New Times (Rwanda) is a reliable source. Pfomma (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I vote no this page should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.Twickenhm (talk) 18:40, 07 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siti Atiqoh Supriyanti[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet WP:GNG or any WP:SNG. Being the wife of a Governor or the wife of a presidential candidate does not automatically mean you're notable. Notability requires verifiable evidence as it is not an inheritance. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Indonesia. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cursory search showed up nothing relevant. Notability is not WP:INHERITED, doesn't pass WP:JOURNALIST as a journalist either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Expanded since nomination, further evaluation would be beneficial.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Non-notable as a journalist, and notability is not inherited. The only claim to notability might be the fact that she is a recipient of the Satyalencana Wira Karya, but I am unable to determine how distinctive the award is. Mooonswimmer 15:14, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magyar szótár[edit]

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

Too hard for me to find sources as I don't speak Hungarian and there is no Hungarian Wikipedia article Chidgk1 (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Hungary. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See hu:Bartos Tibor for an article on the dictionary's creator. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:44, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The inability of one Wikipedian to find sources in a language they don't read is not a reason to delete an article. [1] [2] look like they might be potentially usable. Someone who reads Hungarian or has access to Hungarian library resources might well be able to find more. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Too hard for me to find sources as I don't speak Hungarian and there is no Hungarian Wikipedia article" is not a deletion rationale. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sulpice de Charroux[edit]

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

Based on my review, Sulpice de Charroux does not meet notability guidelines per WP:ANYBIO. At present, all sources are genealogical in nature, tracing his family's ancestry and indicating that he did, in fact, exist and was likely the Count of La Marche. However, there isn't significant coverage, and I cannot find anything that indicates Count of La Marche was a notable position. We may need someone with more knowledge of French and medieval history to double check everything, though. Significa liberdade (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 15 October 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!} 21:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Constantin Pigla[edit]

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

After searching reliable source association football websites (using article name and person's full name), unable to find in-depth coverage to establish notability. Created on 12 November 2013 JoeNMLC (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cameroon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was the only source I could find about him when I searched his name and then clicked on the news tab. Fails WP:GNG. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 18:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:29, 15 October 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. —Bagumba (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Gay[edit]

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

No evidence of sustained notability, only high school play. the only news about any "matthew gay" or "matt gay" I can find in the past 10 years are about a footballer with that name, not a basketball pro. There's no secondary sourcing or news coverage about Gay being signed to FIATC Joventut or his play with them. The original article as created only says "Gay helped FIATC Joventut in 2011 play for a championship" which is just one year of play, and has somehow never been reported anywhere, no evidence of Gay being on their roster ever. Further, it looks like the article was created by a SPA named "Matt" that also included a number of purported autobiographical details of that person's family leading me to believe it's a WP:AUTOBIO problem. lizthegrey (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. lizthegrey (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. I did find a mention of a Matthew Gay playing for Rochester College's junior varsity[3] in 2009 which likely is this guy. In 2011, Joventut was the runner-up in the Catalan Basketball League, which is a pre-season league, but nobody with that name played for the team at least in the semi-final and final. Furthermore, Joventut is a major Spanish team. Snowball chance in hell that they would even look in the general direction of a guy who hadn't played on a higher level that JV ball in junior college. Alvaldi (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spain and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails GNG. Other than the newspaper mention above, I couldn't find other newspaper clippings or sources. ProQuest doesn't bring up anything either. There's a LinkedIn profile that's likely him but the source obviously isn't reliable. Tails Wx 17:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Kierzek (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG per nom and Alvaldi. Cbl62 (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all, fails GNG Rikster2 (talk) 12:39, 21 October 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 Jeff Lynne#Compilation albums. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Message from the Country – The Jeff Lynne Years 1968/1973[edit]

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

Non notable album. Did not chart. No further content. Bedivere (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bedivere (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jeff_Lynne#Compilation_albums. Fails WP:NALBUM, no coverage of the album, did not chart or win any awards. Mooonswimmer 13:50, 20 October 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. It would be appreciated if editors would move new sources from this discussion into the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Davis (author)[edit]

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

The person does not pass WP:BIO or WP:NAUTHOR. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and Christianity. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennessee and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article needs to be far better sourced, I found plenty of reviews that prove Davis's notability per WP:Author. This includes reviews in Publishers Weekly (Link 1 and 2 plus mentions in PW articles about Christian fantasy, see this search for all the PW articles mentioning Davis), five reviews in Kirkus Reviews (see this search), an entry for Davis in Baker & Taylor Author Biographies, plus even more reviews in Booklist, School Library Journal, Christian Librarian, and Voice of Youth Advocates (with these last items found through the Wikipedia Library). It appears this author is a very big deal in the world of Christian fantasy fiction. --SouthernNights (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are correct in this assessment overall. One note that unless a Kirkus review ends up in its magazine or newsletter, which is an editorial decision, Kirkus doesn't generally count toward notability. This is because anyone can pay to have their work reviewed (but not influence the review). —siro χ o 01:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that and don't use the Kirkus Indie reviews when determining notability (Kirkus Indie is the name for their paid reviews). For an example of a Kirkus Indie review, see this review where at the bottom it lists "Review Program: KIRKUS INDIE." However, as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, all other Kirkus reviews are considered "generally reliable" and absolutely count toward determining notability. Anyway, all of the Kirkus reviews listed above were published in the magazine as stated at the bottom of each review, so they're good to use. SouthernNights (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I trust you that those reviews were published in the magazine. For some reason my view isn't showing anything about whether it's been published in the magazine. —siro χ o 15:32, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you click on a specific review, you don't see the magazine publication date at the bottom of the page? For example, the review for Diviner has at the bottom "Kirkus Reviews Issue: Sept. 1, 2011" which is the date the review was published in the magazine. Alternately, in the same location on a review if it says "Kirkus Discoveries" or "Kirkus Indie" then it was a paid review. SouthernNights (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources reviews listed above by SouthernNights with the qualification regarding Kirkus there are still numerous rs reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:28, 15 October 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. Star Mississippi 17:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shia mosques in National Capital Region (India)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NCR is not a state - it's basically an economic region where planned satellite cities of Delhi were developed, such as Gurugram, Noida and Meerut. NCR includes all of Delhi, and some districts of Haryana, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. As such, there's not really much precedent for "List of X in National Capital Region (India)".

It makes much sense to split the article into "List of mosques in Delhi", "List of mosques in Uttar Pradesh", etc. Since NCR is an economic region, and not a cultural one, it makes more sense to group the lists by state.

As for the Shia part, there's really no need for a separate list for Shia mosques, when the denomination can be put in a column. AmateurHi$torian (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Islam, Lists, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a travel guide. CharlesWain (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agletarang (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Notable mosques can be listed in an article covering a broader area. Ajf773 (talk) 04:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ajf773. DSP2092^talk 05:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Seybold (criminal)[edit]

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

All of the sources in this article are about Frank Hohimer, not John Seybold. Frank Hohimer was a real person who wrote a memoir while in prison. That memoir was adapted into a film by Michael Mann. The mistaken belief that Hohimer is a pseudonym is the sole reason this article exists. Seybold did not write the memoir in question. Even if he did, would that alone merit a Wikipedia article? Because the article is both inaccurate and not noteworthy, it merits deletion. Trumpetrep (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 October 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was literally in the middle of transcluding it when Cyberbot conflicted with my edit. ;)Trumpetrep (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Even if the nominator is incorrect and Hohimer and Seybold are the same person, WP:GNG and WP:NCRIME still aren't met. — SamX [talk · contribs] 16:40, 21 October 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. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Global Day of Jihad[edit]

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

Despite the rumors that got some news coverage, as far as I can tell nothing actually happened yesterday in connection with this. Older version of the article had a list of things that happened on the day but no confirmed connections to the call to action. Seems to pretty clearly fail WP:EVENTCRIT. I can't see this having a lasting impact or getting any further coverage. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 18:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only part of this article that meets the notability guidelines is the attack on the diplomat in Beijing, but since that was only one attack, that could be included on main article for 2023 Israel–Hamas war - it doesn't warrant having its own separate article from the main one. Panian513 19:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am reminded of the idea that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. This line from the WP:DELAY policy is also apt: "Anticipation of notability may be mistaken. Many events portrayed by the media as major on the day they occur quickly become only a footnote." The limited amount of properly sourced material in the article would be better addressed as a smaller part of a larger topic. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A global day of jihad did not happen. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 20:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is essentially a hoax that Wikipedia is now propagating. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arras school stabbing where the call by Hamas for a "global day of rage" has been linked to the stabbing by at least one cited source. Alternatively, redirect to the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Too many people have contributed to an commented on the article for it to be deleted. WP:MERGEDELETE, Wikipedia:Attribution, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:COATRACK. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should have been a short paragraph in 2023 Israel–Hamas war instead. NM 21:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination and other comments in here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (especially after expansion by Mistamystery) or merge into 2023 Israel–Hamas war and Protests on the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. Overwhelming amounts of coverage, for instance:

Global Knife Attack Frenzy as Hamas ‘Day of Rage’ Unfolds (Daily Beast)

Rumors of a ‘Global Day of Jihad’ Have Unleashed a Dangerous Wave of Disinformation (Wired)

Hamas 'Day of Rage' protests break out in Middle East and beyond (ABC)

Hamas’ ‘Day of Rage’ draws heightened security in major American cities, attention from the FBI (Fox)

D.C. area boosts security on Friday after call for Hamas ‘day of rage’ (Washington Post)

France bans pro-Palestinian protests amid call for Hamas ‘day of rage’ (Washington Post)

etc etc etc Loksmythe (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there’s an effort to keep, encourage all to expand this article.

Weak Keep This definitely was an event, regardless of how many attacks happened.

Also needing attention is specifically the discrepancy the call to action and the varying responses (and how it connects to differing interpretations and misinterpretations of the term “jihad” Mistamystery (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not a single criterion of WP:NEWSEVENT has been met, even remotely. Nothing to merge, either. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete currently fails WP:EVENTCRIT all in all with WP:DELAY in mind I say it's best to delete and if the event becomes notable and appears in the scientific literature the article might be recreated with things to say --Bari' bin Farangi (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only thing connecting this article is a statement, one attack possibly caused by it, and another unrelated attack. It can easily be a paragraph in the main article. Jebiguess (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2023 Israel–Hamas war § Reactions and/or Arras school stabbing. No indication of that this is distinct and notable event compared to the many declarations and threats issued by terrorist groups in the past, which were also covered extensively by the news at the time, and which we by and large do not grant individual articles. Although many places made preparations, the same can be said for the responses to other declarations. While the French attack was clearly linked to the war in general, there is no hard proof AFAIK that it was inspired by the call for a "Global Day of Jihad" in particular, and even if it did, it already has its own article where this can be discussed and linked to the main article on the war. ― novov (t c) 01:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Support closing at this moment. Consensus is obvious at the moment. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 03:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Plenty of hoaxes and false flags related to the situation in Palestine are going around and this is just one of those. It doesn't warrant having its own article. - Ïvana (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Moral panics that never come to fruition don't necessitate a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk)
Merge into 2023 Israel–Hamas war and Arras school stabbing per above. Despite those concerning calls for worldwide violence, only two (very small) attacks came out of it that day. Less of a phenomenon per se, and more of a whimper that can just be mentioned in the relevant articles. Corgi Stays (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I hope people stop rushing to create articles that fail WP:NEVENT. DFlhb (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DFlhb, this is an endemic problem, and there's an ongoing discussion about fixing it here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Saw it 10 days ago; I'm still not sure on the best way to frame that proposal DFlhb (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not even relevant. Hamas former leader never called for global terrorist attacks.

As reported from Wired, "Meshaal called for protests on October 13 across the Arab world in support of the Palestinians before adding: “To all scholars who teach jihad ... to all who teach and learn, this is a moment for the application [of theories]. While Meshaal very specifically made the calls for protests in “the Arab and Islamic worlds,” his comments were quickly mistranslated online to become a “global day of jihad,” a phrase he did not use."

Source: https://www.wired.com/story/day-of-jihad-disinformation-israel-palestine/

So it is just fake news.

Also, the attacker in France was already on the watchlist over his Islamic extremist belifs, which appears to be the motive behind the stabbing. It has nothing to do with the ongoing war. Gianluigi02 (talk), 16 October 2023

Well, that's just interesting... Corgi Stays (talk) 01:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. People heard about the Hamas declaring this, but nothing significant other than a lot synagogues were protected. This can probably just be a single sentence in the timeline article: Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2023. Conyo14 (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, Jebiguess summarizes it well, as well as Gianluigi02's note that it was a mistranslation. Ornithoptera (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Arras school stabbing. I don't see Mashaal's call as having a direct impact on the war in Gaza. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, telephone-game confusion. – SJ + 20:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Reactions. There seems to be a disturbing level of denial by Palestinians and their supporters regarding atrocities and acts of violence carried out by Hamas, despite overwhelming evidence of these atrocities. The latest call for a global day of jihad is no exception. This may not apply to a specific day or some massive wave of terrorist attacks, but the fact that there are people advocating such a wave of jihadist attacks should not be ignored or dismissed. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are people calling for attacks all the time, this is not challenged. The discussion is about having a Wikipedia article dedicated to a call that seemingly did not even take place. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to the Wired article, this is a mistranslation turbo-charged by misinformation and paranoia. At best we have some misguided security increases and isolated incidents that are not yet definitely connected to this "call" as opposed to a general rise in tensions because of the situation in Gaza. The only thing that is definitively linked to this is Killing of Wadea Al-Fayoume, where a conservative was allegedly so scared of this non-event that he killed a kid. Fails WP:NEVENT as currently written and it is a WP:BLP issue to even say that this call was even made given what the Wired article says. Maybe when there are more retrospective pieces done on this incident in the future there can be an article, but the sources as they stand now don't merit an article. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and soon, since consensus has now been reached and this article is simply totally wrong in it's current form, regardless of whether or not the two attacks listed had the non existent concept in their mind. MarkiPoli (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that with the added context of there never being an actual call for a "Global Day of Jihad" as described in the rumors this article is now essentially perpetuating a hoax. Any content about the response to these comments can be merged into 2023 Israel–Hamas war and the rest should be deleted as soon as possible as it is irresponsible to legitimize the notion of that there ever was such a thing as a Hamas-endorsed "Global Day of Jihad." Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 00:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to The Rocker (film). Star Mississippi 17:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Rocker: Music from the Motion Picture[edit]

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

Non notable album, did not chart. Would better be merged into the movie article. Bedivere (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Bedivere (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Mach61 (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, though be wary that the article is full of unsourced info which may be original research, and a lot of that should probably be dumped. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:28, 19 October 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. Star Mississippi 17:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Millstein[edit]

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

Doubtful notability. I removed the "refs" that don't actually say anything about the subject, and that doesn't leave a whole lot. PepperBeast (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and New York. PepperBeast (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article was promotional to begin with. City Life reporter Victor Fiorillo rightly questions why this local lawyer has a Wikipedia page. After the tax evasion sentence, it became embarrassing but, in my view, not necessarily notable. Deleting the article does Mr. Millstein a favor. The article should have been deleted long ago.

Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:21, 15 October 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. Star Mississippi 17:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahou no Sekai[edit]

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

I am pretty sure this article is a hoax. Or rather there is a thing on Amazon that is being promoted, but it is masquerading as a Japanese light novel series when it isn't. Even if I'm wrong and it's genuine, it is not notable. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this doesn't seem to be a hoax (at least based on the retailer links, not sure if it's actually Japanese though) but it definitely fails WP:NBOOK. I found nothing but said retailer links in a search in both English and Japanese (based on the name provided). Link20XX (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found no sourcing, fails WP:NBOOK. Possible WP:PAID article. Jumpytoo Talk 23:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is little more than a plot summary and a list of characters. Seems to possibly be promotional editing, as well. Bensci54 (talk) 16:42, 17 October 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. Star Mississippi 17:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zielony Gaj, Mrągowo County[edit]

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

Non-existent "village" article created by Kotbot, a bot operated by Kotniski.

There is no village, or place of any kind, with this name listed in Mrągowo. The location given in the article is simply an empty field.

On the same day Kotbot generated this article, it generated 1,254 other articles.

Fails WP:V, WP:GEOLAND, WP:NOTAHOAX. FOARP (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The place described is Zielony Lasek, but there's nothing to merge and this would not be a useful redirect as it's the wrong county (probably because the coordinates in the source lacked precision and put it the wrong side of the boundary). Peter James (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peter James. I tried looking it up and thought it existed, only to find, as above, that the place is Zielony Lasek. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article cites pl:TERYT as a source, but there is no such place in Teryt, which only links Zielony Gaj, Giżycko County and Zielony Gaj, Sokółka County. We cannot accuse mass-work bots of creating HOAXes, so I guess we can chalk it up to some data error... (not the first non-existent location we would have an article for, oh, 15 years...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is not an intentional hoax, but the effect is ultimately the same. FOARP (talk) 09:09, 18 October 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. Star Mississippi 17:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tałty SHR[edit]

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

Mass created article created by Kotbot, a bot managed by retired user Kotniski.

There is simply no evidence that this is a real thing, or even what SHR might stand for. No such entity is included in the Polish regulation on place-names. There is no corresponding PL Wiki article. It appears to be just the name Tałty plus three random letters.

There is reliably sourced here to merge, and no reason to redirect either.

Fails WP:V, WP:GEOLAND FOARP (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SHR is what is described at pl:SHR; this is somewhere in Tałty (or it was), but I could not find anything about its status as a settlement. Peter James (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so this was a state farm. FOARP (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice job decoding what SHR was. TL;DR it seems to have been a company located in or near the real village of Tałty. It does not seem notable. No pl wiki interwiki. It does not exist in pl:TERYT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 17 October 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 Woźnice. Star Mississippi 17:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pszczółki, Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship[edit]

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

The name of this place literally just means "bees". It is not a settlement, the Polish regulation on place-names simply says it is "part of Woźnice" (część wsi Woźnice) - if it were a settlement it would be described as an osada.

Looking at the location, it is palpably just an individual warehouse site with no evidence of ever having been populated. Presently it is the site of an agricultural supplies wholesaler.

This cannot pass WP:GEOLAND as there is no evidence of it ever being inhabited. Since it is just a building/business, the appropriate notability standard is anyway WP:NBUILDING/WP:NCORP, neither of which it can pass.

Redirecting to Woźnice is not appropriate as this is just the word for "bees" and anyone searching it in combination with "Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship" is highly unlikely to be looking for Woźnice, which will anyway have nothing to say about it. If anything, they are more likely to be looking for information about wildlife! We anyway do not redirect the names of individual buildings to the settlement they are in. FOARP (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The warehouse site seems to have a house attached to it (number 83), there is also number 82 nearby. Pszczółki is a disambiguation page in English and Polish with no mention of bees, and the singular, pl:Pszczółka, seems to be a magazine published in Austria-Hungary. The bee-related articles are at Pszczóła/Pszczóły. There's also the fact that this is already disambiguated, similar to Church, Lancashire and River, Kent. Deletion wouldn't be useful to anyone looking for information about bees, it would just mean they would find information about another place with this name - you're unlikely to achieve consensus for deleting Pszczółki, Pomeranian Voivodeship, or adding all different forms of foreign words to the English articles about things such as bees. Peter James (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, those addresses are all in Woźnice, and are part of the same compound. You can actually even look at this place in Google Street-view - there is no mention of the supposed title anywhere. This is a place that exists independently only on Wikipedia and nowhere else. FOARP (talk) 06:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an official name according to the place name register. The addresses are Pszczółki 81, 82 and 83. Number 83 includes the compound (Google street view shows signs with the number 83 at the entrances), 82 is the other side of the road junction, and 81 is further north. Peter James (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The address of the company is listed here: https://mapa.targeo.pl/biofol-sp-z-o-o-pszczolki-11-730-woznice~22100811/sklep/adres
  
  It’s in Woźnice. Pszczolki is the street name - nowhere treats it as an actual community. FOARP (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC) FOARP (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Street names are not in the register of place names, and 81 and 83 are not on the same street. There are similar addresses in some rural settlements in the UK, house number followed by a place name (or two) and a post town. Pszczółki is the "street name" but it also says "Dzielnica: Pszczółki". I was using geoportal.gov.pl for the addresses, which has "Pszczółki" where other addresses in the village have "Woźnice"; The "Miejscowość" field contains "Pszczółki (0762388)" and the "Ulica" (street) field is empty. Peter James (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Miejscowość means locality. If you're going to argue that this isn't part of Woźnice then you're going to run up against the Polish regulation on place-names explicitly stating that this is exactly what it is. Or that these sources are unreliable for the purpose which Kotbot/Kotniski tried to use them for. FOARP (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not arguing that it isn't part of Woźnice. A settlement can be part of another settlement. Peter James (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  OK, then let's just redirect to Woźnice per WP:NOPAGE? Seems pretty straight forward given we've got nothing but a name. FOARP (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Woźnice, which according to pl wiki this is a part of. Not seeing how this needs a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 17 October 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. Star Mississippi 17:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raspcontrol[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Little referencing, and orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Links in Gsearch are straight to eLinux or github, so nothing discussing this software in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like Oaktree, couldn't find any RS coverage. DFlhb (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in News, NYT, and a whole bunch of SPS that don't give information about Raspcontrol. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 05:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mushraif[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:GEOLAND and it has been deleted before. Ibjaja055 (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is the edit summary in the deletion log from the previous deletion:
- "expired PROD, concern was: Not notable. The notable geographical feature here is Mushrif Park - the area is in any case called 'Al Mushrif' but almost entirely consists of the park. Article sourced to a GIS database entry and is fraudulent - the area (independent of the park) is not mentioned the title in the bibliography. Fails WP:GNG; WP:GEOLAND."

@Alexandermcnabb, you live in the UAE --do you know anything about this place?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire Hey, A. B. - I suspect I'm the author of the original PROD and didn't know the article had been re-created. Per the previous deletions, the Park is notable, the area is not. The creator went on a little spree of creating non-existent 'communities' based on a PDF of a Dubai Municipality list of area names - giving an area a name doesn't necessarily mean anyone lives there and in this case, the editor cited fallacious bibilographies and re-captioned generic photos to 'big up' the pages and make them look, at least superficially, notable. You do meet some odd people here from time to time. As for arguments, fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. Thanks for the ping and OTR. Oh, and closer, please God salt this... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Should have been G5'd anyway... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:05, 15 October 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 Exxon Valdez oil spill#Spill. Star Mississippi 17:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Cousins[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Exxon Valdez oil spill#Spill

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Redirect as per WP:1E. lizthegrey (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Transportation, and Alaska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. His name is a reasonable search term given the discussion of his role in the event at the target article, but there is certainly not enough to justify a standalone BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:56, 16 October 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. Star Mississippi 17:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Łuknajno-Leśniczówka[edit]

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

Mass-created article by Kotbot, a bot operated by Kotniski, now retired.

The name of this article means literally "Łuknajno-Forester's lodge", and the location given in the article is a house, surrounded by nothing but forest for miles in every direction. The subject of the article is therefore an individual building, and as such falls under WP:NBUILDING, not WP:GEOLAND. There is no entry for this place in the Polish 2015 regulation on place-names, only for Łuknajno, Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship, which we already have an article on and the location for which is essentially identical. Whilst the article for Łuknajno is not in a good state, looking at the corresponding Polish language article for Łuknajno, and at our article for Łuknajno Lake, it looks like a meaningful article could be developed covering the lake and the manor-house, probably at Łuknajno, which presently redirects to the lake.

Until there's a meaningful article at Łuknajno I don't see the point in redirecting there as it would be a double-redirect at present. EDIT: I've WP:BOLDly merged the content at Łuknajno Lake and Łuknajno, Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship to Łuknajno, and added the history content from the PL wiki page, so I'm OK with a redirect to Łuknajno as an ATD.

TL;DR - This is essentially a WP:V fail as stands, and can never meaningfully pass WP:GEOLAND since it lacks legal recognition. FOARP (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For this one I cannot confirm it exists, not to mention that it has any GNG. No pl wiki interwiki. Some failed OR? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus - My guess is that here is where the state forestry office used to be (or still is?) and so that's why it got listed as a locality. However, these are also being removed from TERYT sometimes so we are left with no way of verifying it. This is the main problem with TERYT - lots of communist-era government stuff, that weren't actually towns/villages/hamlets, was put on to the register, and in some (not all) cases has been removed. FOARP (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP Interesting. How do you know stuff is being removed from TERYT? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve seen SIMC ID numbers cited that can’t be found on TERYT, and I don’t think these were made up. The most obvious explanation is these numbers used to be in TERYT but we’re then removed. I wouldn’t take a former listing in TERYT as evidence of legal recognition - it’s just a database, and the former listing could have been an error that was later corrected. FOARP (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
E.g., see Pieniężno Drugie -the PL Wiki page has a SIMC ID no. of 0155100 listed for this place, but that doesn't give a result on TERYT. The PL Wiki page anyway explains that this isn't an official settlement, so I wouldn't expect to find a listing on TERYT, but then where did the number come from? Likely it was an error on TERYT that has since been corrected, or the status changed, or something else - the site itself is just some kind of industrial facility so maybe there was some communist-era facility there that was listed on TERYT and then deleted - not possible to say. FOARP (talk) 08:46, 18 October 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 Zielno. History remains should sourcing/proof of existence emerge Star Mississippi 17:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kudyny[edit]

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

A mass-created article by Kotbot, a bot operated by retired user Kotniski.

There is nothing at the location in the article. The article was edited to state that the "village" was "abandoned" by Wiktor Nowicki in 2021, but there is no source provided for this statement. It appears to be a WP:SYNTH conclusion based on the place being listed as a "village" here but having no buildings at it's location - but there are alternative explanations for this including the listing on Polish databases being in error, it having been planned but never occupied, or it having been added to the register after being abandoned (e.g., at the end of WW2) and hence not having received any legal recognition whilst it was populated (so not being a WP:GEOLAND pass).

The Polish regulation on place-names lists this as a hamlet of the settlement of Zielno (przysiółek osady Zielno). I am OK with simply redirecting this article to there as an alternative to deletion.

TL;DR - fails WP:GEOLAND, WP:GNG, WP:NOPAGE, WP:IINFO. FOARP (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Former entity, according to pl wiki part of Zielno, where I suggest this is merged and redirected to. Dubious stand-alone GNG.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 17 October 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. Star Mississippi 17:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Main line of resistance[edit]

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

Not an expert but are the lines not just numbered like the Russian lines against Ukraine now are 1st 2nd 3rd rather than "main"? I mean could you even say which of those was "main"? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't make sense of the nomination, but this seems like a fairly fundamental military term that is used extensively in literature. The article is certainly not in a great shape, but AfD is not cleanup. -Ljleppan (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And here's just a few examples of use as a term of art from approximately four minutes in Google Scholar:
- Miller, Jeffrey. "Battle at the 38th Parallel: Surviving the Peace Talks at Panmunjom." Korea Observer 33.4 (2002): 691.
...fighting along the main line of resistance (MLR) that in many ways eerily resembled...
- Clark, Rodney A., and Martha B. Myers "A Description of Combat Rifle Squads on the Korean MLR During the Winter of 1952-1953." (1954): 0058.
While the troops were in these positions on the Main Line of Resistance (MLR), the researchers visited..
- Chambers II, John Whiteclay. "SLA Marshall’s Men Against Fire: New evidence regarding fire ratios." The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters 33.3 (2003): 6.
...group interviews along the Main Line of Resistance, including...
- Edmonds, C. J. "Chapter Twenty-Four. The Bolshevik Invasion." East and West of Zagros. Brill, 2009. 295-307.
the role of our troops was to be that of an outpost which, if attacked, would fall back to ‘the main line of resistance’.
- Grau, Lester W. Defending Forward: Soviet Activities in Front of the Main Line of Defense. Soviet Army Studies Office, US Army Combined Arms Center, 1990.
Not until 2400 hours did the enemy succeed in smashing the combat outpost and advancing to the main line of resistance...
- Epstein, Jonathan A. "7. The Belgian Army to May 10, 1940." Belgium's Dilemma. Brill, 2014. 190-209.
..the Belgian army went into 1938 planning for a main line of resistance along...
- Teschan, Paul E. "Acute renal failure during the Korean War." Renal Failure 14.3 (1992): 237-239.
..experiences in 1952-1953 when the battle line - the Main Line of Resistance, or MLR - had stabilized...
- Simmons, Edwin Howard. "US Marines in Korea, vol. 2, 1953: The Final Crucible." The Journal of Military History 66.4 (2002): 1245.
Most of the fighting occurred at the company or battalion level in a system of outposts out in front of the main line of resistance.
Also used by e.g. Britannica ([4]). Ljleppan (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ~~Delete - No sources at all~~. Original source unknown. A google search shows this exact wording repeated on various wiki-like sites, with no sourcing on them either. If this were credible, it would be on a reliable military website somewhere. — Maile (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per my thread with Hawkeye7 below, I have changed to Keep after sources were added. — Maile (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well-known military concept. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hawkeye7 I'm willing to change my above Delete to a Keep, if you, or anyone else, can do some sourcing in the article. That's really the problem there. — Maile (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Do you mean just adding sources to the statements in the article, or overhauling it to make it into a useful article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I'd be satisfied just to see some sources added at the appropriate places in the article. — Maile (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I have added sources at the appropriate places in the article, but a great deal more could be said. Ljleppan is correct in reminding that deletion is not cleanup. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The added sourcing is a start. I've changed myself above to Keep. — Maile (talk) 20:38, 17 October 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 Lubiszewo Tczewskie. Since nom provided this potential target, assuming they have no issue with this outcome. Star Mississippi 17:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Owczarki, Pomeranian Voivodeship[edit]

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

A mass-created article by Kotbot, a bot operated by retired user Kotniski.

There is nothing at the location in the article. The 2015 Polish regulation on place-names lists this as część wsi Lubiszewo Tczewskie (part of Lubiszewo Tczewskie, which we have an article for), so not a settlement (which would be an osada).

There is no evidence that anyone ever lived here - indeed there is no evidence that any human being ever confirmed this place was anything more than a point on the map before turning it into an article on English-language Wikipedia. On the same day that Kotbot generated this page, it generated 2,349 other Polish location articles.

I don't think it makes any sense to redirect this to Lubiszewo Tczewskie, since it is simply a location name for which we have no information at all and which that page will have no information on at all.

TL;DR - fails WP:GEOLAND, WP:GNG, WP:IINFO and WP:V. FOARP (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 10:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons given in the TL;DR above. If this user really created over 2000 low-effort pages in a day, I'm tempted to say we should procedurally delete them all, but I don't know if we have a policy for that and perhaps a few of them have been expanded into usable articles by other users. What a mess. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, Kotbot created many more articles like this. The ones I've been picking up over the last few days were found simply by looking at the places where GMaps has place-names for places in Poland where there is nothing there: we've been spamming GMaps with non-existent places. FOARP (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP Where are those GPS coordinates even sourced from? Pl wiki is inclusionist so I expect they may keep their articles even if we delete it. Ditto for Wikidata. If we have fake coordinates, we need to clean up more than just en wiki. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But we do have to start somewhere if we are ever going to clean up these non-existent places that are found throughout rural Poland. FOARP (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. I think hamlets meet GEOLAND. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not obviously or necessarily a hamlet? The register lists it only as a part of another settlement, not necessarily anywhere that people lived. Many state farms, railway settlements, forestry offices, etc. got added to the register and stayed on there after the end of the communist era. And even if it were a hamlet, WP:NOPAGE is pretty clear on what happens to pages for which we have no real information at all. This is a failed verification since there just isn't anything at the location. FOARP (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Piotrus, you asked to be pinged on articles that were część wsi with a redirect target - here it would be Lubiszewo Tczewskie. FOARP (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, here I missed TERYT query - it is indeed just a part of a village. Redirect, mention there, that's enough. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 20 October 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 Lesiaki, Pomeranian Voivodeship. There's nothing being deleted, so there's no point in relisting it when these were mass produced and language is an issue. The history remains if sources eventuate. Star Mississippi 17:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Święte, Pomeranian Voivodeship[edit]

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

Mass-created article by the bot Kotbot, run by retired editor Kotniski.

Not a village, nothing but trees at the specified location. The Polish regulation on place-names lists this as "part of the colony of Lesiaki" (część kolonii Lesiaki) - see p. 1636 here. We already have an article about Lesiaki, Pomeranian Voivodeship.

Nothing to merge as there is nothing accurately sourced in the article (yes, that includes the location for which we do not have a source). Święte literally means "saints", of which I'm sure they have many even in just the Pomeranian Voivodeship, so a redirect makes no sense. This is simply a location, with no evidence of inhabitants or ever having been inhabited.

TL;DR - fails WP:GEOLAND, WP:GNG, WP:NOPAGE. FOARP (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. FOARP (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Lesiaki, Pomeranian Voivodeship which it is a part of and which should mention that fact. Not seeing enough GNG to merit keeping it as a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XSpot Wealth[edit]

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

Besides the sources already cited in the article, e.g. emea and newmoney, there are a few more news organisations that mention the company (euro2day, Insider.gr 1 2, asfalisinet.gr, reporter.gr). However, the coverage all clearly falls into categories that are not suitable for use in establishing notability, the announcements of personnel changes and new offices, interviews, "they wrote an article for us", etc. I've not been able to find anything useful through TWL or Gale either. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely there will be sufficient coverage to meet WP:ORGCRIT unless something substantially changes with the company. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Greece. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Coverge is not in-depht and by secondary reliable sources. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 10:54, 14 October 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zsolt Süle[edit]

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

Yet another WP:RUNOFTHEMILL singer notable only for participating on a reality show. See also Marius Bear, also at AFD. Pottyantós WC (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AFD Nominator Pottyantós WC has been banned for WP:DE Jeraxmoira (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - nom made by indefinitely blocked editor. BabbaQ (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a valid reason for keep
Very weak keep, maybe a BLP1E case, but keep since nom was made by indeffed user. 88.110.38.249 (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure it matters that the nom editor is banned since this person does not actually appear to be notable. He was one of 30 people who took part in a local competition and he did not win or place. He is 54 and a quick search didn't find anything about a notable career prior to sending in an application for the show. The article lacks reliable sources about everything other than the competition participation (potential redirect target Hungary in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018). The Hungarian version of the article also reads like a advertisement, which to me, indicates a lack of notability even within Hungary. Grk1011 (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The status of the nominator shouldn't determine whether or not this article is Kept or Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, heading towards No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my Keep !vote. Sources are decent. BabbaQ (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Offsiders[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. No information about the program’s segments. Redirect to the list of programs broadcast by the ABC, if no notability is found. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 06:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 06:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Connolly, Paul (2007-02-26). "The ABC of cheap". The Age. Archived from the original on 2023-10-17. Retrieved 2023-10-17.
  The review notes: "The second show, Offsiders (Sunday 10.30am), follows the politically minded Insiders program so seamlessly that all the budget-conscious ABC has to do is to remind Barrie Cassidy, who hosts both shows, to think scores instead of scandals and swap armchair-reclining political "opinionators" such as Gerard Henderson, Andrew Bolt and Piers Ackerman (known to some as the "axis of evil") with authors and sports journalists Gideon Haigh and John Harms. Again, like Head 2 Head, Offsiders has a pleasingly understated feel about it, not least because it forwards the radical idea (these days at least) that you don't have to be a big name former player to have something worthwhile to say about sport. If anything, it allows for opinion unfettered by allegiances which, in turn, allows for a few well-aimed barbs and not just a "sport's great, mate" attitude."
2. Sinclair, Lara (2006-07-29). "Television Guide - Sunday July, 20". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2023-10-17. Retrieved 2023-10-17.
  The review notes: "That small benefit doesn't always save Offsiders, which retains the same host, format and almost the same name as its 9am Sunday political stablemate, Insiders, from being just a pale imitation of a sports program. A recent episode looking at the Tour de France was a case in point: given that the ABC promises intelligent, insightful debate about sporting issues, it might have helped had one of the sporting scribes in residence had more than a nodding acquaintance with road cycling. ... Cassidy has a modest air of on-screen confidence that appears to engender a Parky-like level of relaxation from his media guests. But maybe by 10.30am, things need livening up. Offsiders purports to bring the same level of challenging discourse to the sporting arena but there's no doubt Insiders packs the heavier punch."
3. Epstein, Jackie (2006-02-26). "A complete armchair sports guide - Barrie serves up a treat". Sunday Mail. Archived from the original on 2023-10-17. Retrieved 2023-10-17.
  The review notes: "Offsiders is a show for anyone who's serious about their sport, providing challenging, insightful, humorous debate about the one topic that dominates weekends - sport. However the discussion will be driven by passionate spectators rather than participants. The show will include a dynamic mixture of sports results and intelligent and witty analysis from the punters' point of view."
4. Epstein, Jackie (2007-11-04). "Offsiders takes a punt on Kathryn". Herald Sun. Archived from the original on 2023-10-17. Retrieved 2023-10-17.
  The article notes: "Offsiders special preview will include detailed analysis of the Cup field, reviews of the key lead-up races, interviews with the leading trainers and jockeys and robust discussion. The team will also review Derby Day while looking ahead to the Melbourne Cup, Oaks Day and Stakes Day."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Offsiders to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Great job by Cunard as usual, comfortably meets the WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 09:17, 18 October 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 10:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wollo Kombolcha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG and NORG. Source in article is a database record, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 05:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Ethiopia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already brought to AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG due to lack of detailed football coverage found in English or Amharic. All I can find is their Facebook page and the GSA source already used. I do note that there is one Amharic source listed in the previous discussion but it's not enough on its own and the source itself doesn't really give any opportunity to expand the article into anything meaningful. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 18 October 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 06:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brie Gabrielle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG as an actor and beauty pageant contestant due to a lack of independent secondary coverage. Let'srun (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Beauty pageants, and Florida. Let'srun (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick Google search turned up more than enough coverage in sources to pass WP:NACTOR: [5] [6] [7] [8] —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

West Yosemite League[edit]

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

This league lacks the WP:SIGCOV needed for a standalone article. No issues here for redirecting this to CIF Central Section. Let'srun (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and California. Let'srun (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Less than a month and a half ago, this NOM was involved in a class discussion for deletion including this league. Until they are stopped from this kind of antagonization, I expect they will continue to attack this class of article, high school sports leagues. As I said previously, there must be WP:SIGCOV of all local high school sports leagues. No local media could survive while ignoring the local sports played by the local high schools. Prove me wrong, maybe you can find one league without this kind of coverage (but don't claim success just because you did it behind my back). This league is not the exception. Previously I added one local newspaper covering this league. That did not appease this NOM's attack. I have now added another ten, including 3 newspapers and a television station along with sports-specific media, all covering this league. There is plenty more where that came from on the first page of Google. Neglecting to look for sources before making a nomination for deletion, even muted as Merge, is a violation of WP:BEFORE. That means look first. If the article is missing some significant coverage, use your editing skills to FIX IT before bothering the entire community to needlessly discuss deleting an article.Trackinfo (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES and WP:JN are not legitimate keep arguments. Routine local coverage doesn't help this subject qualify for WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There appears to be extensive coverage of this league in local media - Newspapers.com brings up 25,000 matches for "West Yosemite League" and its games regularly receive significant coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is not a suitable keep argument. We need WP:SIGCOV, and routine game reports from local outlets do not suffice to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, being extensively covered on a regular basis is what makes for a notable league; that's why WP:NBASIC states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"inclusion is routine, and can not be taken as evidence of notability". Let'srun (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, inclusion in what? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if you are arguing for Keeping this article, it would be helpful if you located additional sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Local coverage is beyond routine game coverage, offering examinations of the various sports leagues under this umbrella as a whole. Here are a few examples, but as was mentioned above, there are thousands of hits in local coverage for this, many of them beyond routine game coverage.
- There's annual sigcov of football league eg: [9][10]
- There's coverage of league tournaments and sports seasons, eg [11][12]

Also, note that there are at least two local papers covering this league.

—siro χ o 08:52, 14 October 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. Star Mississippi 17:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandr Yaroslavskyi[edit]

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

This person is not the actual subject of in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources: he fails WP:GNG. None of the claims are particularly noteworthy, and none have ample third-party coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 00:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There appears to be a well-cited article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia:[13]. Thriley (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:43, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article in Ukrainian is largely unsourced. Ostalgia (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it with fire. Unsourced article waxing lyrical about an oligarch, looks like a PR release, probably paid editing to boot. Found it quite shocking when I first saw it. Ostalgia (talk) 12:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article from the Kyiv Post is a nice summary that could be used to build out the article: [14]. Thriley (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's mostly an interview - as far as secondary sources go this is as primary as it gets. I do not think this is acceptable for a BLP. Ostalgia (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage in the following sources:

Rachkevych, Mark (2015-09-19). "Kharkiv's Richest Man Sounds Off - Sep. 19, 2015". Kyiv Post. Retrieved 2023-09-30.
"Олександр Ярославський: Біографія, досьє, фото Олександр Ярославський". forbes.ua (in Ukrainian). 2022-12-27. Retrieved 2023-09-30.
"Олександр Ярославський, бізнесмен, власник і президент групи DCH, входить до списку найбагатших українців". dumka.media (in Russian). Retrieved 2023-09-30.

Two significant secondary-source profiles in Ukrainian and one in English is more than enough to establish notability -- we don't even have to consider news coverage, which is prolific and ongoing as can be seen from the sources in the Ukrainian Wikipedia. Jfire (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 14 October 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 05:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Tex[edit]

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

No indication of importance only seeming support is a unsourced claim which I cant find any evidence for. Cant find any articles on him google shows his music ie spotify, youtube videos , ect. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 14 October 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 keep arguments are really stretching the definition of WP:ENT. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Tomar[edit]

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

The person does not meet WP:CREATIVE and my WP:BEFORE has not revealed any sources which are more than passing mentions. Lightburst (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say WP:ENT rather than WP:CREATIVE would apply to Tomar because he is a voice actor. As such, he meets this criteria because he has had a significant role in a lot of movies, tv, and games.

Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 00:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Knowledgegatherer23 Which of his roles you think is significant? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus I took another look at it. While only a couple of roles are significant, he has had a lot of roles. I'd say it is enough to be a keep. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 14:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus The significant roles include Mr. Miller (Barbie) and Storm, King Rouge Wolf (Alpha and Omega 8). Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 14:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Voice actor qualifies under WP:ENT for significant voice roles in many media. Dcotos (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More policy based input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:17, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Comics and animation, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ENT requires the person to have multiple significant roles, I don't think this person passes that criteria since all his roles are supporting roles or "additional voices". Of course a supporting role can be significant but I don't get that from checking the articles on media productions he's appeared in. Also fails WP:GNG since there are no reliable sources talking about the actor. --Mika1h (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ミラP@Miraclepine 23:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur that all of his roles seem to be minor, and GNG is not met. If he is notable, all voice actors would be notable. Note to closer: two keep votes make assertion that he had significant roles, but do not even say which ones. I looked at the list and they all appear to be the very definition of insignificant, minor roles for background characters who had just a few scenes at most.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 21 October 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 05:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GDT speedster[edit]

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

Reads as promotional both sources seem like promos. Various unsourced lines Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The car has received some reliable coverage here, but everything else I could find seemed to be trivial mentions, which don't establish the subject's notability. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TechnoSquirrel69. Mooonswimmer 15:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep — withdrawn‎. Nominating rationale and other concerns no longer apply after recent changes. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Memphis Sessions (Rick Nelson album)[edit]

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

There are several issues that make the article not ready for mainspace, and it currently fails to meet WP:NALBUM — the only significant coverage of the subject is provided in the Chicago Tribune source, the others are only trivial mentions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ as nominator. This is unfortunately the latest in a string of Ricky Nelson articles created by the same user, all with similar issues. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:48, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can’t vote on your own nom, FYI. Mach61 (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware that that's a rule; I was simply clarifying my intent since this article is a disputed draftification, and didn't mean to imply that it should be deleted unless we have a good reason to do so. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your AFD nomination is considered your "vote". If you are seeking to draftify this article, then just amend your nomination statement to include this information. But you can't cast additional votes in an AFD you started. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one is recent enough that sourcing is a bit easier and should readily meet WP:NALBUM#1. From the article we have Chicago Tribune [15]. There's also coverage in Philadelphia Inquirer [16]. There's also about a half a page or more of coverage, spread out in Ricky Nelson: Idol for a Generation by Joe Selvin. —siro χ o 09:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of Nelson's LPs are notable. As with Perspective, there's significant coverage in the Nelson biographies Rick Nelson, rock 'n' roll pioneer, Teenage idol, travelin' man : the complete biography of Rick Nelson, and Ricky Nelson : idol for a generation. Jfire (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw here as well per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perspective (Rick Nelson album). —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:08, 18 October 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 Dial Global Local. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hits Now![edit]

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

Not finding any coverage suggesting this subject meets the WP:GNG. Perhaps redirect to Westwood One? Let'srun (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Radio. Let'srun (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dial Global Local may be a better alternative to deletion here. (This service is mentioned there, whereas the Westwood One article has not contained much information about its 24/7 music formats since 2013.) These nationally-distributed music networks tend not to get the type of significant coverage — or much of any coverage, for that matter — to approach the GNG, particularly when they are designed to not sound like a national service and are not promoted to the general public (as opposed to trade promotions to those in the industry) in their own right as opposed to in the form of promoting the affiliate station itself. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with WCQuidditch. Basic Google searches found nothing, just PR pieces on Dial Global, none of which mentioned Hits Now! User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 15:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dial Global Local. Mooonswimmer 13:47, 20 October 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 Swimming pool#Covers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming pool cover[edit]

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

Fails GNG. The only sources that came up on Google were pool cover company websites and advert-laden listicles. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 01:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject doesn't meet the GNG, and WP:NOTDICTIONARY also seems to apply here. User:Let'srun 01:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swimming pool § Covers may be a valid alternative to deletion here. Apparently this was split from a longer version of that section, but perhaps given the thin sourcing, the subsequent shrinking of the section was, by itself, the actual correct solution to the size/length problem, not a separate article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of redirecting the article. Cwater1 (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to that either. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 18:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swimming_pool#Covers. Mooonswimmer 13:46, 20 October 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 14:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RDB Consulting[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An article by a new editor about an IT consultancy firm on which a previous instance was deleted at AfD 11 years ago. Several sources in the present instance date from 2011-12 and may have been in the previously considered instance. These and more recent sources are predominantly announcement-based: funding, award sponsorship, corporate partnership, etc., all of which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. If anything, WP:NCORP has become more stringent since the previous iteration, and I am seeing nothing to suggest the previous decision on non-notability should be set aside. AllyD (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and South Africa. AllyD (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty of passing mentions in PR-based sources or newswires, but no in-depth coverage indicating genuine notability that I can find in reliable sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:11, 5 October 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 00:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. Mooonswimmer 13:41, 20 October 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.