< February 02	February 04 >

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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahraban Abdullah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO.
The article is about The first doctor from the United Arab Emirates to specialize in cardiology for pediatrics, which appears to be very specific and not something worthy of notability.
She is also the chairperson of some committees, but they don't appear to be of importance. I couldn't find any information on the internet to verify notability. Lolekek (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Lolekek (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lolekek (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She is the first female doctor in her field which in UAE might be quite a significant achievement. However, I cannot find WP:SIGCOV other than the sources already mentioned in the page. As a researcher she only (co)authored four papers. Broc (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and NPROF Okoslavia (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The achievement doesn't seem to have translated into in-depth coverage in reliable sources, which is the main thing we're here to evaluate. (I checked in both English and Arabic and didn't find anything; although I suppose it's possible there are Arabic sources I'm missing, that possibility isn't enough to affect my !vote.) As there's no apparent argument for an WP:NPROF pass, delete is the right outcome here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough significant coverage to meet the requirements of notability. 1keyhole (talk) 02:59, 11 February 2024 (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.

Snow close. The result was delete‎. Bishonen | tålk 21:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Tseko[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The articles in Nigerian newspapers (Guardian, Telegraph, Vanguard, Sun) seem to be undisclosed paid articles, which appears to be a common practice in the country, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Nigerian_sources_on_paid_article. The Benzinga and Yahoo Finance references are the same article (the Yahoo article being a reprint of the Benzinga one). It doesn't look like a sponsored post, but opinions on the reliability of Benzinga seem mixed ([1]). The Bloomberg "Profile and Biography" is akin to a wikidata entry and contains almost no meaningful info, and doesn't count towards notability. AvBuyer is a marketplace for aircraft and not a source that would indicate notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Aviation, and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm calling BS on this. An American person, with apparently no connection to Africa or Nigeria, is extensively covered in Nigerian media. I mean he could very well be notable in America, but there is no coverage from this side of world about him. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is about the only American coverage I can find, and it doesn't help notability [2]. This is fishy. Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The heavy reliance on the seemingly-paid sources makes this article reek of self-promotion, and the lack of secondary sources reinforces that. All of that is not to mention that the article is literally orange-tagged for paid contributions. The Kip 01:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Left guide (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources appear to be undisclosed paid promotions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per above and GNG. WeAreAllHere _talk 10:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Straight old-style puff piece article. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 12:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Benicaverra (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rockland County's Best Magazine[edit]

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

No indication of notability PepperBeast (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Business, and New York. PepperBeast (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I wonder if this thing even exists. Just about the worst name for a publication I think I've ever seen, and eminently unsearchable as a term. Links are dead. StonyBrook _babble 01:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Okoslavia (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2024 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calbia[edit]

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

An unsourced article on a non-notable fictional location. I can find no actual significant coverage in reliable sources that discuss this fictional country - the best I can find are mentions in summaries of the one story it appeared in. As far as I can find, the reference to a Thomas Fortenberry making comparisons to Marvel Comics in the last paragraph is just based on comments on this page, which is obviously not a reliable source. As the one story that the location appeared in does not have an article on its own, I can find no suitable redirect targets as an WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. Rorshacma (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing relevant found at all, although Calbia is apparently also the name of a multivitamin supplement marketed in India: [3]. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources exist for this unsourced article. The Thomas Fortenberry comparison originated from the comments under a blog post. Furthermore, a Google search indicates that the fictional location is not the primary topic for this term. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. Be icaverraverra]] _talk 18:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to insufficient reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Okoslavia (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2024 (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. Notability established after recent additions. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zdzisław Celiński[edit]

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

I can't find definitive proof of any notability of this man. Most of the google results are for a professor of engineering, but that's a different guy who passed in 2023. The lack of a Polish wikipedia article, while not a deal breaker, is a bit suspicious. The handful of books appear to be the other guy as well. The only source I found was [4] but it appears to have mostly been pulled from here and they outright say there that there's almost no information about him. Wizardman 22:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Poland. Wizardman 22:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found some additional sources, all in Polish: https://bcpw.bg.pw.edu.pl/Content/5595/PDF/02ik39_nr2.pdf, https://genealogia.okiem.pl/powstaniec-styczniowy/71126/zdzislaw-celinski, https://przegladpolskopolonijny.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/przeglad-polsko-polonijny-nr-5-6.pdf. But they don't really support his notability, so I vote for deletion. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 00:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First hit in Google books has a paragraph long coverage of him [5], with a footnote to a popular history magazine. Since it is from 2006 and cites a 1931 article in said magazine, no citigenesis here. He is mentioned in several other sources as well [6]. Seems like a WP:TROUT for the nom for failure to do a basic Google Book search. PS. The '39 source found by Bedeguz above also seems fine (reliable), although I see only a brief mention on the subject there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how I'm unable to view the book (says I'm at a limit somehow) the trout seems mighty unnecessary. Wizardman 02:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I added some info, person seems notable. Marcelus (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2024 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spartacist League (Sweden)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Any sources to be found online are self-published and scant on information or self-published and primary sources. AlexandraAVX (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I split this off from a poor article back in 2006, but didn't actually write it. It hasn't developed since, and that seems to be because there is a lack of reliable sources and no evidence it is notable. It's not even covered in Robert Alexander's International Trotskyism, which is generally a good source for such groups. Warofdreams talk 23:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Okoslavia (talk) 08:01, 10 February 2024 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axborough[edit]

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

I can find no indication that "Axborough" exists. The OS mapping 1:25k has an "Axborough Wood", but not a settlement called "Axborough". The article has been unsourced since its creation in 2005. (I came across it while working on the Unsourced Backlog project, where I'm going through the intersection of Unsourced and Category:Mountains and hills of the United Kingdom.) PamD 22:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. PamD 22:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further WP:BEFORE: Victoria County History of Worcestershire has nothing except the single sentence, under Wolverley parish, "Axborough Wood on the east is a plantation made since the Inclosure Act in 1775." Genuki has nothing. Vision of Britain is offline today. PamD 00:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's Axborough Wood (listed by Ordnance Survey as a wood not a settlement), Axborough Lane, Axborough Edge, Axborough Farm, Axborough Lodge in Wolverley and Cookley parish but no settlement called "Axborough" even though its been marked as a hamlet on OSM (doesn't seem right). No presumed notability under WP:NPLACE. This article is about Axborough Hill for which I've been unable to find any reference outside of Wikipedia mirrors etc (perhaps it was a local informal name?); the article may be misleading so unless other evidence turns up, have to recommend its deletion. Rupples (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As noted there doesn't seem to be much evidence the hamlets exists even though its clear the featured named exist. There is however information on the history of the name of the farm which may make it qualify as notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This further muddles things. The red dot on the map places the farm?/the hill? in a different location to the other Axborough-named features and links a farm (presumably that's what the 'Fm' stands for) to a hill of a different name. I've now found "Great Axborough", an arable field near to Wolverley in a 1796 auction notice. Various reports in connection with foxhunting do mention the name Axborough on its own, but don't specify anything further. Rupples (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK I see the map is north west of Cookley not south east where the other features are. Possibly it could be related namely the name was used for a large area years ago but otherwise its concerning so probably doesn't qualify as notable. I was about to !vote delete until I did a Google search and found the far source. It probably should be deleted but I'm not completely sure. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article started out claiming that this was a village, in 2005. It's amusing that the real village there is Lea Castle Village which didn't exist when this article was written; and apparently it was a hospital before that.
There was a quite extensive Axborough Wood in the 18th century, per ISBN 9780851152769 page 122, next to what in the 9th century was Wulfweardig (Wolverley) Lea. That same book confirms on page 124 that Axbourough Hill gave its name to the Farm and the Wood, and they are both where this article claims them to be, and has the important sentence when talking about the Wolverley boundary at Axborough Hill that "The adjacent land was open common waste until 1778.". I'm sure that the "spurious" charter of A.D. 866 by Burgred to Worcester monastery laid out in Della Hooke's book has a happy place in the Wolverley article if Crouch, Swale or someone feels like pushing that article back 2 centuries using this new source.
But as for this article: All this is in a study of land charters from pre-Norman Conquest times. No village. Ever. Delete.
Uncle G (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G. Okoslavia (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2024 (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. A rough consensus was reached that the subject's awards and 3rd party references were not sufficiently substantial to warrant an article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allyson Parsons[edit]

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

Marked for notability since September 2021. No major awards or recognition to meet WP:ARTIST. Hardly any article links to this. LibStar (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Visual arts, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG. Certainly the 7:30 Report reference meets RSS, as does The Canberra Times. Awards are small, but all in all, content that reaches significance bar. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Canberra Times article is a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. I'm unable to verify if the 7.30 report is indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be plenty of varied references. The number of links to the page (see nom) should not be a criteria for deletion. And per above, the content adds up to a notable and sourced article. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how she meets WP:ARTIST. Her awards are very minor from the town of Victor Harbor, South Australia which has a population of 5200, and many of the sources relate to these awards. LibStar (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5 of the 7 sources are from Victor Harbor Times which is hardly a major news source in Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here is an archive of the 7.30 source. It's essentially an interview with friends and family members. The other sources are passing mentions of local awards. The closest we get to critical analysis of her works and influence, such as they are, is this quote from 7.30: Allyson sits there as a contributor to that dialogue, adding her vision to the way we see our country. Not enough to meet WP:NARTIST. Jfire (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2010 finalist for the Gallipoli Art Prize. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see this person listed in the Getty ULAN, or find any mentions of her collections in museums. This is about all I find [7], which is really just for a local fundraiser. No sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage is not sufficient for GNG, and other criteria for NARTIST are not met either.

JoelleJay (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ridley Scott's unrealised projects[edit]

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK from Ridley Scott, which does not meet WP:NLIST; would not be a helpful redirect to main biography. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Entertainment, and Lists. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep, it would not be out of place in Scott's biography, and in that biography, there is no room for it, so it does not look like an unnecessary content fork, especially since everything looks sourced. Geschichte (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Meets WP:NLIST. The subject of the list has been the object of coverage as a group. Also, in general, when a very very notable filmmaker has a substantial filmography, a detailed article about his unmade projects, well-sourced, helps navigation and makes sense. Sources added to the page.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A highly valuable article on an aspect of a prolific major director that's too long for incorporation in his main biography. MisterWizzy (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list mainly includes notable items. Not a good choice for AfD. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NLIST. Toughpigs (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep, for reasons already stated by the above users, Scott is a prominent filmmaker, and it's useful to cover a aspect of his career (in this case, unmade films) in a separate article as it would seem out of place on the director's main page and since it is a vast amount of information. More than that, there have been countless articles which cover the topic by major publications and websites, which should back up why it's relevant to even have an article dedicated to such subject in the first place. The article also meets WP:NLIST so I see no reason why there's even a discussion of its deletion. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 3:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
~~Maybe not a problem, but you do know that your name does not show in your signature, right?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep per above as it meets WP:NLIST. The 4 sources in the lead alone show how this meets notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see nothing objectionable here either in terms of notability or verifiability. BD2412 T 03:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with DaniloDaysOfOurLives. Dream Focus 12:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
130% Keep, I believe film history and what could have been is an important thing to know when learning about film history. Film in turn is an important part of our history & culture. I'm in the keep. Along with every other director & their unmade projects should people consider deleting those. (talk) 17:30 6 Febuary 2024 (AEST) — Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yacob01: Maybe not a problem, but you know that your name did not show in your signature?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to nominator: @AirshipJungleman29:. Looks like a Snowball. You don't wish to withdraw in order to save time? Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes CFORK but it seemed apparently easy to gain consensus for it, if one was ever tried. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand your comment but more importantly perhaps @Georgethedragonslayer:, you shouldn't !vote twice. Would you please remove your second bold /Keep/? Thanks in advance. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:40, 6 February 2024 (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. Unopposed. Sandstein 19:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Malecki[edit]

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

Only sources are self-published, can't find any sources online. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG AlexandraAVX (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, failed Wikipedia General notability guidelines. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2024 (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 speedily deleted‎ per criterion A10. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian People's Republic (Editable)[edit]

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

Fork of Ukrainian People's Republic (or rather misuse of article namespace) that should be userfied to User:Numberyy/sandbox or User:Numberyy/Ukrainian People's Republic. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —⁠andrybak (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 3 February 2024 (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 Czechoslovakia at the 1976 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (engage) 17:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Václav Sůva[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG; No in-depth coverage of this bobsleigh athlete on any news websites, and he has/had never received medal record. Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia is also an unsourced stub. We can assume his bobsleigh career has ended given that he is 74 years old. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Czech Republic. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Czechoslovakia at the 1976 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh per the reasons in nom. FromCzech (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per FromCzech. Jdcooper (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Subject does not meet the WP:SPORTSBASIC, with the only source being a database. A few searches doesn't come up with much else. Let'srun (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as WP:G5, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JKLlamera‎. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Advincula[edit]

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

BLP of a barangay chairman and councilman, who has not held any notable public office and does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Philippines. Mccapra (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This subject article is supported with news articles that will provide its legitimacy. Therefore, this shall not be deleted, but instead additional citations must be added. AtorniYormeJKLlamera (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Politicians at the local level of office are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass conditional notability standards that hinge on demonstrating the impact of their political careers: specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their stint in office had on the development of the town or city, and on and so forth. But this is basically just his résumé, and features virtually no content at all about his impact.
And a local politician having the merely expected level of run of the mill local coverage is not, in and of itself, an inclusion freebie either — every local politician has local coverage, so if that were how it worked then every local politician would get an inclusion freebie and nobody would actually have to be measured against NPOL at all anymore. So, again, the notability test for a barangay chairman is not "he exists", it's "he has a compelling reason why he should be seen as a special case of significantly greater importance than all the other barangay chairmen in the Philippines", and nothing of that calibre has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject person is a politician who served as a city councilor for four terms, a vice mayoral candidate in 2019, and mayoral candidate in 2022. He is now an elected barangay chairman. AtorniYormeJKLlamera (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
City councillors and vice-mayoral candidates aren't "inherently" notable either, and still have to clear the same high bar as I pointed out for barangay chairmen. The lowest level of political office that automatically guarantees a Wikipedia article to every holder is the provincial legislature, and there's no such thing as automatic notability at the city level at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article creator now blocked as the sockpuppet of an already indeffed user. Is this now eligible for speedy deletion under G5? Mccapra (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I am sufficiently convinced that notability can be demonstrated through sources for the subject of this article. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (gas) 17:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Beal[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO for the following reasons.

1. https://www.ukwhoswho.com/display/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.001.0001/ww-9780199540884-e-6900 - primary source and not part of Wikipedia's notability criteria.

2. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199576128.001.0001/acref-9780199576128 - Primary source and it's just a listing so not significant.

3. https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/dh/tag/manuscript-studies/ - a blog with no consensus on its reliability.

4. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/fellows/peter-beal-FBA/ - the website for an academy that he is a member of.

Nothing that satisfies WP:NACADEMIC and general notability should always come before the alternative notability criteria. Signal Crayfish (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK3. Together with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Gray (literary scholar) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Guest, the third of a series of pointy and bad nominations by a nominator who refuses to accept the validity of WP:PROF#C3 (which Beal passes). If the nominator will not stop doing this on their own they need to be prevented from continuing this bad pattern. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does he pass C3 for Prof, I can't find sourcing to support this. Sourcing is rather scant to be honest. Nothing in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see the first piece of text after his name in the article, FBA? It is linked. Go learn what the link means. Also go re-read WP:PROF#C3, the part that says "For documenting that a person has been elected member or fellow (but not for a judgement of whether or not that membership/fellowship is prestigious), publications of the electing institution are considered a reliable source.", and then notice that there is in fact a footnote linking to exactly this kind of source. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did and I didn't understand what it was. So again, how does he pass C3? Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And a one line citation is fine, but we need more than that if you want to keep an article here. Do you have anything else besides a one-line listing? That's not enough for the article to be kept. And please keep the snark to yourself. Oaktree b (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:PROF as a Fellow of the British Academy: [8]. He also has a festschrift ("In the Prayse of Writing: Early Modern Manuscript Studies: Essays in Honour of Peter Beal"). He also satisfies GNG and BASIC. He also satisfies AUTHOR, with multiple periodical book reviews, such as: [9][10] [11] [12][13][14] [15][16][17]. James500 (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Perhaps passes Prof C3, but with no sort of extensive sourcing beyond a one line mention in a repository, we don't have enough to keep the article. Perma-stubs aren't really what we're looking for in Wiki Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are now as guilty of both failing to apply our notability criteria, and of failing to apply WP:BEFORE, as the nominator. The FBA link is more than one line. It is already enough by itself to satisfy our notability requirements. And if you want plenty more material to fill out an article (and to satisfy another notability criterion, WP:AUTHOR), search JSTOR for published reviews of Beal's books and peruse the many hits that you get. Please make more of an effort. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't nominate the thing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And there's no reference in the article saying he's an author, I wouldn't expect to find this. Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, see WP:BEFORE. Notability is based on what is available as sourcing, not on what is already in the article. WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is and always has been a list of his books in the article. —Noswall59 (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep re Oaktree b's comment: The thing that matters in AfD is notability, not the size of the article. If the subject passes Prof C3, then it's notable, and shouldn't be deleted. Toughpigs (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But we need sourcing, we don't have that. Oaktree b (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you have already been told, the article already contains sourcing adequate for its content and adequate for our notability guidelines, and additional sourcing is plentiful beyond the article as it stands. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I also asked to be explained how he passes C3. I'm not in the UK so have no knowledge of how important or unimportant a thing is unless you can explain it. You've thrown a bunch of stuff at the proverbial wall, without really explaining any of it for the lay person. Likely passes the AUTHOR notability, but the lack of civility is concerning; we're aren't here to attack ppl. Simply answer what's been asked and let's move on. I have no interest otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I already explained how you could find out the answer to your question: click on the FBA link and find out what the BA is for yourself. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and it didn't make much sense to me, we don't have an honours system here. Not sure what we've accomplished at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your user page suggests that "here" = Canada. Canada certainly does have honorary membership in academic societies: Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada for a start. As in the UK, they are sometimes written in initials immediately after the name: see List of post-nominal letters (Canada)#Academic orders, societies, academians. The important thing is the selectivity of the level of membership in a society, not so much the way it is written. People with an FRSC, at least, would also pass #C3, because the RSC reserves that honor only for top Canadian academics. Other societies from that list might also pass on a case-by-case basis. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b:

1. WP:PROF#C3 says, "The person has been ... a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor."

2. Beal is a Fellow of the British Academy, which is a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor.

3. Therefore, Beal — a Fellow of the British Academy — satisfies C3.

I believe that this answers your question. Toughpigs (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NPROF and WP:ANYBIO as an FBA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page needs a bit of fleshing out but clearly passes WP:PROF#C3 as per David Eppstein and Toughpigs. Qflib (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Cooper (linguist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, secondary independent sources.

1. https://www.ukwhoswho.com/display/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.001.0001/ww-9780199540884-e-11819 - Primary source = directory listing.

2. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/fellows/robin-cooper-FBA/ - non independent source because they are a member of this academy.

Fails WP:NACADEMIC because they don't hold a named chair or a distinguished professor appointment. Plus, WP:POKEMON asks the question, does Wikipedia need an entry for every member of this academy? Some of these humanities people are notable, but many aren't so it seems like the author has applied the pokemon test in the inverse. Signal Crayfish (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly passes WP:PROF as he is a Fellow of the British Academy, which is inherently notable. Wikipedia isn't harmed by having these articles. CoconutOctopus talk 18:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK3. FBA is clearly a pass of WP:PROF#C3. Likely to pass other WP:PROF criteria (because FBA) but a detailed examination would be a waste of time. Nominator should stop their spree of (at least four) pointy and bad nominations of FBAs, or be made to stop. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:Pokémon test is not a serious argument for deletion. Whether the subject of this article is less "notable" than "an average Pokémon" is entirely subjective and has no factual basis. It's just a way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't think I've ever seen someone invoke that argument in multiple AfDs before. This is bad practice. Toughpigs (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Both FBA and having a festschrift are clear passes of NPROF.

JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:PROF as a Fellow of the British Academy: [18]. James500 (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NPROF and WP:ANYBIO as an FBA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's quite obvious from the article that he is notable. Athel cb (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gray (literary scholar)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO for the following reasons

1. https://www.ukwhoswho.com/display/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.001.0001/ww-9780199540884-e-17948 - just a directory so it's primary.

2. The Writer's Directory, vol. 31, part 6 (London: St. James Press, 2013), p. 1220. - Routine writers directory. Therefore, it's primary.

3. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/fellows/richard-gray-FBA/ - He works at The British Academy so it's not independent and it's primary.

Fails WP:NACADEMIC because he doesn't hold a named chair and The British Academy is not as prestigious as National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics. Plus, WP:Pokémon test may apply here. Signal Crayfish (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, WP:SK3, stunningly bad and highly erroneous nomination statement. (1) ANYBIO is the wrong notability criterion; he should be evaluated by WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. (2) I see no evidence that "He works at The British Academy". The link given contradicts that, stating his current post as emeritus professor at the University of Essex. (3) FBA is a clear pass of WP:PROF#C3. The NAS and RS are for scientists; the BA is the corresponding institution to the RS for literary scholars, among others. (4) the nominator is very confused over whether coverage being "routine" makes it "primary" (no). And there is nothing excepting routine coverage in GNG. (5) A cursory search of JSTOR finds many reviews of his books, easily enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you take a look at the post about this on Signal Crayfish’s talk page? I am not sure they really understand notability and may have a battleground mentality. Thriley (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:Pokémon test is not a serious argument for deletion. Whether the subject of this article is less "notable" than "an average Pokémon" is entirely subjective and has no factual basis. It's just a way of saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't think I've ever seen someone invoke that argument in multiple AfDs before. This is bad practice. Toughpigs (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. James500 (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NPROF and WP:ANYBIO as an FBA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Weak because the article as it stands certainly justifies the stub tag that was placed on it very recently. It needs some serious work to expand it into something more informative. Athel cb (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2024 (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Guest[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASIC for the following reasons

1. https://www.ukwhoswho.com/display/10.1093/ww/9780199540891.001.0001/ww-9780199540884-e-13901 - this isn't even his profile and the source isn't reliable.

2. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/anthony-guest - this is an academic profile but he wasn't a named chair or a distinguished professor so it fails WP:NACADEMIC

3. https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/50906/page/5769 - This is a routine press announcement that he passed the bar like many run of the mill lawyers do. Plus, it's a routine press announcement so it's primary.

4. https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/51578/supplement/8 just another listing showing another appointment that doesn't meet any of the alternative notability criteria for living people. Plus, it's a routine press announcement so it's primary

5. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/fellows/anthony-guest-FBA/ - This source isn't independent because he's a member and it's a primary source. Plus, The British Academy isn't the same as a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics) so again this fails WP:NACADEMIC Signal Crayfish (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (as creator). Guest is one of the leading experts on English contract law; he held a full professor at King's College London, one of the UK's leading universities; was elected a fellow of the British Academy, the UK's national academy for the humanities; and was appointed CBE and Queen's Counsel, significant state honours. He also edited several leading textbooks in his areas of specialism. If he is not eligible for an article here, I am really not sure how many living non-celebrities would meet the threshold. I'm going to address your points in turn.

1. Who's Who is a selective biographic dictionary produced by Oxford University Press, one of the foremost academic publishers in the world. It's inclusion criteria and editorial process is found here and states that:

"An invitation to appear in Who’s Who recognises distinction and influence. ... The holders of some posts, such as MPs, senior judges and high-ranking civil servants, are invited to have an entry as a matter of course, when the appointment itself is of general public interest. For those who do not fit into these categories, a Selection Board meets regularly during the preparation for each edition of Who’s Who to discuss potential entrants. The Selection Board reviews those people whose professions are less rigidly structured, such as artists, actors and sportsmen, as well as professors, scientists and businesspeople. Prominent figures in numerous fields are considered by the Board on the basis of their continuing achievements, and ultimately selected due to their exceptional pre-eminence. Where necessary, the Selection Board consults those with specialist knowledge."

2. WP:NACADEMIC#5 says that holders are presumed notable if "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." We don't have distinguished professorships in the UK and named chairs are very rare, at least in the humanities; the highest academic rank is professor, and in my experience this has normally been seen to meet WP:NACADEMIC#5 for UK academics (will see if I can find some AfD discussions to demonstrate this, but leaving this here for now).

3. This is not referring to him being called to the bar; this records his appointment as a Queen's Counsel (or King's Counsel now that we have a king in the UK), which are "barristers or solicitor advocates who have been recognised for excellence in advocacy. They’re often seen as leaders in their area of law", according to the Law Society. In fairness, I don't feel that every KC/QC should be presumed notable to the degree that they all need articles, but this is a significant professional award which, in combination with his other achievements, cannot be summarily dismissed here.

4. This is the official record of him receiving the CBE, which is a fairly high-ranking and quite exclusive UK honour; it's particularly rare for academics or lawyers (other than judges) to receive a CBE.

5. The British Academy IS the UK's national academy for the humanities and social sciences. Election to its fellowship is a highly exclusive honour; in 1993, when Guest was elected a fellow, he was one of only 36 academics to receive this much-coveted status.

Furthermore, Guest's extensive publication list suggest that a great deal of critical engagement with his legal work should be found in scholarly articles and reviews; I don't think, for all the reasons listed above, that this is necessary to establish notability, but a quick search should settle the matter if others disagree. Cheers, —17:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a subject matter expert with publications going back decades who has been elected as a Fellow of the British Academy. Article can and should be expanded but currently it does indeed demonstrate that he meets WP:NACADEMIC. Thriley (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK3. The nominator has made it clear on their talk page that they do not understand or accept our notability guidelines, particularly WP:PROF#C3 (which Guest passes), but their misunderstanding should not be the basis of a deletion nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:PROF. He also satisfies GNG and BASIC. He also satisfies WP:ANYBIO as a Commander of the British Empire (CBE). He also satisfies WP:AUTHOR, with multiple periodical book reviews. James500 (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Satisfies WP:PROF#C3. Toughpigs (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NPROF as a holder of an established chair at a major university, NPROF and WP:ANYBIO #1 as an FBA, and ANYBIO as a CBE. @Signal Crayfish: May I suggest you get a little more experience of Wikipedia editing before nominating any more articles for AfD? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Clearly meets Wikipedia's notability threshold. He satisfies WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:NACADEMIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signal Crayfish (talk • contribs) 19:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolaita Sodo Agricultural College[edit]

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

This subject (not the same as Wolaita Sodo University) fails GNG and NCORP. The citations provided are ROUTINE and my BEFORE search (in English) only found content about the university, not this college. I can't speak to what else might be in Amharic. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Ethiopia. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2024 (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 snow keep. Mach61 (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)‎[reply]

Christopher Brown (British composer)[edit]

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

Fails wp:anybio

https://londonlibrarymembership.b2clogin.com/londonlibrarymembership.onmicrosoft.com/B2C_1A_SusiOrSspr_SAML/samlp/sso/login - just links to a login page

https://www.lennoxberkeley.org.uk/articles/bach-and-lennox-berkeley - is written by the composer so isn't independent or secondary.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095530447 - is a routine discography on a reference site that isn't regarded as a reliable source and has no relationship to Oxford University

http://www.musography.co.uk/Page%202.html - musicography is just a miscellaneous music blog

https://www.britishmusicsociety.co.uk/2024/01/christopher-brown-24-preludes-and-fugues/ - This is a routine book review

This composer also fails WP:MUSICBIO tand WP:COMPOSER because they havent had any significant major label releases, they haven't contributed to any notable soundtracks or performed with any notable ensembles and as far as I can see they have no named chair at a major university. Signal Crayfish (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I firmly believe that this composer article is justified and should not be deleted. It can be strengthened. I have already added two sources which I believe are stronger than what is cited above. I will do my best to help preserve this article. SpookiePuppy (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Entry in Grove Music Online ([19]), entry in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music, entry in Contemporary Composers ([20]) -- meets WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. For the purpose of our notability guidelines for authors, there is no such thing as a "routine" book review. This article is not about an organisation. A book review can be "insignificant" if it is so brief and short that it is not lengthy enough to pass GNG, but it cannot be "routine". James500 (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can fix the Grove Dictionary of Music link (sorry, my mistake, the link was to my library access portal), though it's a subscription service, so the whole article won't be available. Brown is retired now but was at RAM for 40 years and retains links to King's College. He is a composer of many substantial works that (especially choirs) still perform, so there's a need for reference material. The two main reasons I added the article were that 1) many links to the American composer Chris Brown's entry should actually have referred to the British Chris Brown (I have now fixed them), and 2) The new recording of his 24 Preludes has just come out, and new reviews are likely to come out over the next few months - with other works likely to be recorded as well. He was the teacher of at least three blue link composers and of at least one more that would justify his own entry. There's room to expand the article by going into the music in more depth. On the Lennox Berkeley link, there's no need for independence here - LB was a very famous composer, the proof that he taught Christopher Brown is not disputed. The link was included to help explain how Berkeley influenced Christopher Brown's music.Sfjohna (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oxford Reference link is from Oxford University Press (closely linked to Oxford University), and the publisher of the Oxford Dictionary of Music (sixth edition, 2012 revised). The text shown from the link is taken directly from the Dictionary.Sfjohna (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep: Obviously, a Grove entry is an open-and-shut case for establishing notability. Thanks to all those who have improved the article! Why? I Ask (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata I created a new Wikidata entity so that the Authority Control could be addressed. I added quite a lot of referenced statements before I realised that there was already an entity in existence and linked to the French Wikipedia article. I have now merged these entities into one and tidied up the surviving one. See: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q123574568 SpookiePuppy (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2024 (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. Some sources are provided in the article. However, editors did not come to an agreement on whether the level of coverage is sufficient to demonstrate the notability of the subject. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (confabulate) 17:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Zaza[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NWEB and GNG. Many of these citations fail WP:SPS. The Haaretz cite is a mere mention. The PhD dissertation talks little about the subject and are in the footnotes as much as in the body, which is weak. Everything else (ynet, tech.walla, mako, makorrishon) are interviews and so, aren't independent so there's not much for notability of this subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article in Israel's most-sold newspaper counts toward notability. It's a SIGCOV and RS description of the comedians/content creators by two journalists, without interviewing anyone. gidonb (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: How? "The "Shugar Zaza" thing about Pokémon undoubtedly draws on the personal experience of Trager and Paz, who even managed to predict the madness that will take over the world more than six months in advance" I don't see SIGCOV there, regardless that the source is RS. And, a single article along with aformentioned dissertation still seems too low for GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is based on analysis of their outputs, strengthening the SIGCOV. Also, did you notice that you are answering to a comment, not to a !vote? It makes your comment that this is just one source a bit premature, doesn't it? gidonb (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"did you notice that you are answering to a comment" Yes. "...a bit premature, doesn't it?" No. Sometimes I decide to let editors cast wrong !votes and say nothing. Other times when I see someone saying something like a given source is SIGCOV and I don't see it, I ask how. I examined each of the citations present and did a BEFORE search ahead of this nomination, so it doesn't seem to me unreasonable to question why other editors would interpret sources differently. Normal people ask questions and discuss. If you take offense at my questioning of your logic, maybe AfD isn't for you since argument is typical in these discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I take offense? I found one valid source that counts toward notability. That's not enough for a keep yet maybe a beginning for the next person. Therefore it was a comment. You have every right to comment below my comment. So do I. gidonb (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes the GNG. The sources are the most-sold newspaper of Israel and Israel's newspaper of record. The characterization of the Haaretz source in the intro as a passing mention is a complete mischaracterization. That entire article is about the activities of this couple and how these were received (badly). There is much more coverage of this duo but these are two SIGCOV RS sources that satisfy the GNG. gidonb (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hardly significant coverage, it's barely half a page long. Oaktree b (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oaktree. It's a common comment for Hebrew and Arabic sources. These are very concentrated languages. Texts in Hebrew and Arabic become significantly longer in Germanic and Romance langauges, including English. And vice versa. Half a page in Hebrew is SIGCOOV. gidonb (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's just not enough coverage to keep the article. The Ynet article is fine, it's barely half a page long. This [21] also isn't extensive coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Haaretz, Ynet and Walla are leading media. The TV coverage was also made by some of the most watched channels. It is important to remember the proportions of Israeli media and entertainment industry. Sugar Zaza's videos have made very impressive viewing numbers (especially in comparison to the potential of Hebrew content). Their works are some of the most popular and notable viral hits in Israeli web. They also have one of the longest ongoing careers by Israeli independent content creators.

However, the parts about their international success certainly do require additional sources. JamesB007 (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the coverage in minimal. That's mroe the issue. Viral hits mean nothing unless we have extensive sourcing talk about them. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2024 (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 17:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Diablo[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Scotland. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 21:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Their Allmusic biography is a good start. I found this review of their second album. A prog rock site has these two, admittedly more flimsy reviews. Tried searching Newspapers.com to no avail. Geschichte (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the Daily Record review and AllMusic bio. Unfortunately Sea of Tranquility is considered an unreliable source. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2024 (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. Notability and content are not under dispute but the translation seems to be a problem. I would be concerned that draftification would bring the article out of the eye of those who might improve it. Instead, tagging and/or bringing to the attention of relevant WikiProjects may be a better way forward. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (palaver) 17:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satsumautsunomiyaryu[edit]

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

Direct translation of ja-wiki article with no attribution, possible machine translation. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Biology, and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I’m not clear what the deletion rationale is here. If it’s a translation from ja.wiki, add the translation template to the talk page. (The ja.wiki article was created by the same user by the way). If it’s a machine translation it’s not a bad one, but tag it for improvement if you want to. There are plenty of refs and the subject seems notable. Mccapra (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra. No valid reason for deletion given by nominator. Jfire (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I see no problem with the content of the article per se, or the fact that it may have been machine-translated (rather good quality if so). However, it appears that the specimen has not actually been classified yet - it has not received a binomial (genus and species remain unassigned). See the article here [22], unfortunately in Japanese only. Under these circumstances, I don't believe we should have an article about the fossil. Suggest moving to draft until the taxon has been properly described. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Not formally described as a taxon, so WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES does not apply. Any claim to notability would be as an individual fossil specimen (it should be in Category:Specific fossil specimens), although I'm not convinced it is notable as an individual fossil (I'm also not convinced that several other articles in that category tree are notable). Can revisit notability of the draft if/when it is formally described as a taxon. Plantdrew (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere are no particular issues with the content of the article.山登太郎 (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC) — 山登太郎 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep This seems to be notable although it could certainly be improved. For all those editors suggesting that it be draftified, unless someone is committing to improvement, this notable topic is likely to languish until it's deleted as a draft. Better to keep it live and allow those who wish to easily discover it and work on improving it in the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. DCsansei (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Move to "List of informally named non-dinosaur fossil reptiles" or such a page? Japan have multiple undescribed reptile fossils, such as another plesiosaur Hobetsu-araki-ryu, Since there are many unnamed materials of pterosaurs, plesiosaurs etc from the world, I assume it is reasonable to create page like List of informally named dinosaurs. While this and Satsuma pterosaurs are pretty important for Japanese paleontology topics, but sadly to be honest I don't think it would be enough notable in English Wikipedia until described. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, shouldn't page title be "Satsuma-Utsunomiya-Ryu" instead? See List of informally named dinosaurs for example, name translations are shown like "Futaba-ryu" or "Katsuyama-ryu" there. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) GSS ^💬 13:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satoshi Utsunomiya[edit]

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

Direct translation of ja-wiki article with no attribution, possible machine translation. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Biology, and Japan. UtherSRG (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I’m not clear what the deletion rationale is here. If it’s a translation from ja.wiki, add the translation template to the talk page. (The ja.wiki article was created by the same user by the way). If it’s a machine translation it’s not a bad one, but tag it for improvement if you want to. There are plenty of refs and the subject seems notable. Mccapra (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra; I don't see a notability issue with the article. jp×g 🗯️ 06:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere are no particular issues with the content of the article.山登太郎 (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC) — 山登太郎 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Procedural keep and trout the nominator, where is the rationale? whatever machine translated or not the page is perfectly suitable for readers and the perceived translation-attribution issue could had been fixed in a matter of seconds with a tag and without starting a deletion discussion. At best, WP:VENUE, at worst Wikipedia:Competence is required. Cavarrone 10:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being an attributed machine translation (especially of this quality) is not a reason to delete an article about a notable topic. DCsansei (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just needed to clean up machine translated mess. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2024 (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 12:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theory in Practice[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2022, unreferenced since 2008. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND, no real coverage beyond reviews on fan sites and similar. The dewiki article seems to have a total of one maybe reliable source for the purposes of notability, but I can't find anything else. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unconvinced by the reliability of any of the sources that came up in my WP:BEFORE besides a single article from Metal Injection, which in itself is borderline. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2024 (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 11:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thiha Zaw (footballer, born 1994)[edit]

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

I can find coverage of Thiha Zaw and Hein Thiha Zaw but nothing about this much less notable namesake. It was initially a BLP PROD but it was contested with the addition of the 3 sources currently cited in the article, none of which seem to work. I managed to find Soccerway, which merely confirms that he sat as an unused sub for 5 matches in 2019. I'm not seeing anything even close to WP:SPORTBASIC #5 for this particular Thiha Zaw. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, creator is building a ca talog of Burmese football players and while acknowleding sources are a challenge and bias is an issue, in this particular instance there isn't much of a claim to notability either. Star Mississippi 13:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2024 (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 11:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nyi Nyi Lwin[edit]

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

His name in Burmese is "ညီညီလွင်" and I can't find any coverage that would meet even WP:SPORTBASIC #5, the bare minimum requirement for all sportspeople. It seems his only claim to fame is playing in one friendly match. I'm not seeing any evidence that this person qualifies for their own article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2024 (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 11:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aung Thike[edit]

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

Lack of coverage found when searching "အောင်သိုက်", "Aung Thike" and "Aung Thaik". I can't find evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC #5, the bare minimum requirement. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:09, 4 February 2024 (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 11:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ádám Érsek[edit]

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

I am unable to find any significant coverage in Hungarian or Slovak media. MY Nitra covers him scoring 4 goals in a match but the article lacks depth on him as an individual. Paraméter is a passing mention in the Hungarian language. Lacks evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Hungary, and Slovakia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:09, 4 February 2024 (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 11:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Raspas[edit]

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

Hasn't played professionally since 2020 and insufficient coverage for WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC in my searches. His name is "Δημήτρης Ρασπάς" in Greek. Phile News mentions him scoring in the Europa League and then going on military service. Since that military service, he seems to have disappeared into the amateur tiers of Cyprus. Phile News mentions him again in 2022 but it's just a transfer announcement with no independent analysis. There are further copied and pasted transfer announcements in subsequent years. In 2023, we have Sport FM and, in 2024, we have Cyprus Times. Transfer announcements that are copied and pasted from the club websites are not acceptable for SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:09, 4 February 2024 (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 Hwali. Bold merge of duplicative short pages. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 21:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hwali (village)[edit]

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

merged with Hwali Babakathy (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Zimbabwe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 3 February 2024 (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 11:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Diving Educators Association[edit]

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

Run of the mill trade organization that do not appear to meet the standard for WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, Education, Sports, and Florida. Graywalls (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2024 (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 Manama, Zimbabwe. Bold merge of duplicative short pages, no further discussion necessary (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 21:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manama (village)[edit]

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

Merged with Manama, Zimbabwe Babakathy (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Zimbabwe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and speedy close. Geschichte (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2024 (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 11:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Startup Village[edit]

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

I've tried to sort this article out but most of the sources used to create this article were written by Kris Gopalakrishnan - the startup village's chief mentor. The two remaining sources, BBC and Reuters are reliable but two reliable sources oestensibly liften from a press release do not make this subject notable. Therefore, it fails WP:NCORP 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 08:22, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Kind of promotion-based topic. And the sources doesn't have in-depth coverage/details per nom. CSMention269 (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate slop, based on what exists; if somebody finds more in-depth coverage, ping me and I will take another look. jp×g 🗯️ 06:51, 4 February 2024 (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 11:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement with consequences (immigration)[edit]

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

The references I checked are either broken or don't support the claims they are footnoting, and I had to remove some potential libel that failed verification. I'm not sure the title represents a term that's used by reliable sources, and it seems like the topic of different approaches to and the history of immigration enforcement is already covered by Illegal immigration to the United States and articles linked from there. This article has been an orphan since 2019, so it seems authors of other articles are not linking to this term, which may be more evidence it's not in widespread use? -- Beland (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Beland (talk) 08:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article not mentioned by outside sources at all, appears to be WP:SYNTH. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 05:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Polemical fork of Illegal immigration to the United States. Carrite (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This topic might be notable, per these sources: [23], [24], [25]. However, I had difficulty finding any more sources, and even if there are, the article as currently written is a POVPUSH mess and TNT applies. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:30, 10 February 2024 (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. ✗plicit 11:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohmil[edit]

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

Seems to be a dictionary definition, which is prohibited per WP:DICTIONARY. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 04:46, 19 January 2024 (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/2024 January 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems to essentially be a part of speech in certain languages, like a verb or adjective, and I'm seeing a fair number of linguistic papers discussing them. Could easily be expanded with e.g. some discussion of how stemming algorithms handle mohmil words, there's two papers on that alone at a quick search. (I also suspect there's likely to be a lot more coverage in Urdu, but I'm too monolingual to confirm that.)— Moriwen (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is pretty much DICTDEF but one would think there must be a good merge target for the information. Carrite (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2024 (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 11:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Coalition Against Pneumonia[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, promotional article. All of the sources in the article are journal articles about pneumonia. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Organizations. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The tone of the article expresses promotion-based. No significant sources were found. CSMention269 (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2024 (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 11:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Rubenstein (activist)[edit]

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

This person is not notable. Most of the article is given over to promotion of some causes. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United States of America. – Muboshgu (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sudan and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No actual significant coverage on the article. Be icaverraverra]] _talk 18:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Okoslavia (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italian soft power[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Italian soft power

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

This page is created to defame the the country mentioned in it and not only this page but the author Ghalbeyakh of this page created and edited multiple pages to defame the respected parties such as Qatari soft power, Qatari involvement in higher education in the United States, Soft power and more. These are the pages edited by the author which seems to have a propaganda against a nation/party. some of his edits are marked as vandalism already. This author particularly seems to harming the authenticity of the Wikipedia policies. I would like to have a chance to prove this. Isouf Qaleed (talk) 06:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:50, 3 February 2024 (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/2024 February 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have repaired the malformed syntax in the header (and somehow, I don't think using substitution was intended in that manner, anyway). No opinion on the article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Food and drink, Language, Architecture, History, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At first glance this looks like someone's college term paper, but the citations already in the article demonstrate that "Italian soft power" and "Italy's soft power" is a headline term of discussion in multiple independent reliable sources. I don't agree with the nominator that this article defames Italy; on the contrary. Persingo (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Persingo says, the article appears to be supported by valid sources, and I don't see anything defamatory here. If the author has vandalized other articles, that can be taken up there. P Aculeius (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like I wrote in the deletion vote for Qatari soft power, I have recently been studying soft power around the world and decided to write this article as part of my research. I've gone ahead and written up this article, using third-party sources I thought were reliable. I know it is not ready yet, but I decided to upload it in its current form anyway so other editors who are knowledgeable in this topic could contribute. Ghalbeyakh (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. MarioGom (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article should probably be downgraded to start-class, but the topic is certainly of encyclopaedic value, as I suspect articles on most countries' soft power would be. As a WP:ATD, I can't see an obvious target for a redirect or merge (Foreign relations of Italy might come closest). See also Soft power of China. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be a legitimate topic in foreign affairs, and it seems to be decently cited. The citations in the article show that it is notable, and I'm frankly not seeing any WP:NPOV issues in the present text. And, even if there were, when editing can get rid of them, and the topic is notable, then we should edit rather than delete the whole thing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To make it easier for the closing administrator, three sources that demonstrate SIGCOV may include "Italy's 'soft' Power" (a chapter in an academic history book about modern Italy), pages 390-393 of "Culture and identity, basic reference for European and Italian diplomacy" (an academic journal article), and "The Italian language: soft power or dolce potere?" (an academic journal article analyzing aspects of Italian soft power relating to the Italian language). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:19, 6 February 2024 (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 11:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist Party (Canada)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. All sources given are primary sources and the few mentions of the organisation in reliable sources are trivial. Yue🌙 05:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the article below because it covers the same organisation but during its "organising stage", i.e. Maoist jargon for "We don't have enough people yet to make an organisation function." No sources given, and not even trivial mentions by reliable sources.

Revolutionary Communist Party (Organizing Committees) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yue🌙 05:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom

. Okoslavia (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2024 (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 04:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John of Ibelin (died after 1250)[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no sources given. Even the name doesn't disambiguate correctly from John II, Lord of Beirut, and all sources I can find are about other Johns of Ibelin (often either the aforementioned or John, Old Lord of Beirut). ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 03:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Cyprus. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 03:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 10-minute search for sources at the usual locations only finds incidental mentions as part of the Ibelin house family trees. Page created in 2008 with a request for sources (infobox) present on the page since 2008... I doubt strongly this page meets notability criteria for an individual page - Mention as a member of the family tree is already present on House of Ibelin, which appears sufficient. Shazback (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology of the Holocaust[edit]

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

This is a personal essay written that largely summarizes Caroline Sturdy Colls' excavation of Treblinka. I'm quite surprised that it's lasted this long, but I hesitated in PRODing it because I thought something could be salvaged out of this once the literal essay ("I hope to present a deeper understanding of...") has been deleted. Kazamzam (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. The topic may be notable, but summarizing a single academic article in this style is not the correct way to write encyclopedic article. Ping User:Buidhe for their 2c (and maybe they can rewrite and rescue this?). PS. I thought about voting merge to Treblinka extermination camp, but lack of footnotes hurts :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
General references aren't ideal, but since when did using them become a reason to discard sourced content? – Joe (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe: Good point to consider (if moot now given the rewrite): WP:APLRS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, I did vote against it! – Joe (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the rewrite, the article seems fine. Switching to keep. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article covers a topic that should be part of either Caroline Sturdy Colls or Treblinka extermination camp. The latter already has a already a section for archaeological studies, which clearly mentions these archeological surveys and findings, referenced by a BBC article authored by Sturdy Colls. I don't think there is a significant amount of information to be taken from this page which is not already included or has been considered by editors beforehand on either page. Shazback (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is clearly a notable topic and it encompasses more than just Colls' work on the Treblinka camp.[26] Both the essay-like tone and reliance on a limited number of (perfectly good) sources are surmountable problems and deletion is not cleanup. – Joe (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm with Joe Roe on this. Clearly a notable subject, a surfeit of sources is available eg [27][28][29] and more. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Following comments by Joe Roe (talk · contribs) & Doug Weller (talk · contribs), and after reading through the sources they found, I have rewritten completely the page. If not relevant / suitable it can be reverted, but I think this is a better basis to improve the topic in the future than the version submitted for AfD. I am striking my !vote above for clarity. Shazback (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shazback Much appreciated. Always great to see someone being so constructive. Doug Weller talk 07:45, 5 February 2024 (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 04:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Bee Foolish[edit]

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

Unsourced music bio from 2007. WP:BEFORE yields very little, and far from meeting WP:MUSICBIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not pass GNG. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 04:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Muhammad Mohsin Government High School, Rajshahi[edit]

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

School fails NCORP. The Banglanews24 cite is a mere mention. Banglapedia says nothing about this school. The Ministry of Education cite is ROUTINE. The first academia.edu cite only mentions this school; the second says nothing at all about it. The Prothom Alo and Daily Campus are ok but I think that's too little for GNG. I worry this is a stealth advertisement, as most of the content is not cited. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman The second academia.edu cite has used for Reformed Madrasah Scheme. This school was included in that scheme. And Banglapedia cite has used for Commission on National Education (1958) and the school was also included that commission. Is it not normal not to mention the school name separately? Farhansnigdho (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was a reformed madrasah scheme. We need sources that are actually about the school, itself per WP:SIGCOV. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman The sources is given for the scheme or commission which is mentioned in the article not for the school. This school was under that scheme or commission. -- Farhansnigdho (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd.

Logs: 2024-01 ✗ deleted ← 2024-01 ✗ PROD

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 03:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article looks fine. While I note the nominator's concern over advertising, I'm not seeing evidence. It's a state school, so do not immediately see a promotional angle. It's been written differently from most AfD'd schools, which tend to concentrate on facilities offered. This provides content on the school's history/background. Granted, sources are not great but one should take into account the possibility that offline Bengali language sources exist especially given the school has been in existence in various forms for 150 years. Based on this and existing sources, I'm giving a weak pass of the GNG. I'm also aware there's an apparent conflict of interest. The article creator's user page states they previously attended this school. I don't on the face of it see this as a big problem, given the way the article's been written. Rupples (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the information mentioned in the history section is not cited by any online or offline source. The editor is trying to add and keep a website as the official website, which is made by the alumni of the school. Significant coverage was not found. GoddessFG (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has written impartially or neutrally. I don't see anything promotional here. In the article editors focused on its history and I think it is connected with the education history of Bangladesh to a great extent. It is right that some content is not coverd by reference. This article is translated from Bengali Wikipedia where many sources are not cited, but the editors have cited some source here. In this case, the article can be kept by removing the unsourced materials and keeping the sourced material. And I can't see any evidence about the website being unofficial and website is not used as a source in the article. As the website's domain is a country top level domain prefixing .edu so, I don't see any possibility of it being unofficial. That's not a big problem. Cihangir (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC) — RX720 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Citation added to some information and unsourced information has been removed. Farhansnigdho (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Daily Campus and Prothom Alo sources are providing significant independent coverage. Arman ^(Talk) 10:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 23:03, 8 February 2024 (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. Sourcing is insufficient. A redirect may be created as a matter of editorial discretion, but there's no clear target here. Star Mississippi 14:06, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BAA Training[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business news and annoucements scope_creep^Talk 18:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Schools, Aviation, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good referencing meeting basic media coverage requirements and generally notable company as the biggest on Europe airplane pilots training establishmnet; also checked local newspapers in Lithunian and found coverage in the best local media like 15min, vz.lt, etc. Definitely keep it, but the language and tone should be changed to meet Wikipedia-neutral language. I also added some good sources and events to the page. BoraVoro (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post WP:THREE reference so we can see what references you found, because I don't think there is anything apart from the usual trade PR and press-releases. scope_creep^Talk 19:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

already added to the page BoraVoro (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both those references you added to the article fail WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. The first one states: "Textron Aviation says on its website that the contract was signed during last week's", so that is a press-release. The second one "Vytautas Jankauskas, executive director of BAA Training Vietnam, said in the announcement." fails WP:ORGIND and WP:SIRS. I think your a UPE dude. scope_creep^Talk 09:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the sources are more like press-releases. But, I didn't tell I added three best sources (as you may think), but I added some new sources to the page. My fault that reply sounded like "I did find and added". And please refrain from blaming me in some sort of promotion, as it is even prohibited by by Wikipedia. I think there is some rule, that the article and sources should be discussed, not people. BoraVoro (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.elnacional.cat/es/tecnologia/los-pilotos-de-air-india-se-formaran-en-lleida-alguaire_1112328_102.html kind of good source. But I'm not sure if it passes Orgind BoraVoro (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Nothing but an advert. - Altenmann >talk 02:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:Promotion, simple. CSMention269 (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: An article setting out the wares of a training subsidiary company. Announcement-based coverage is insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH, as is coverage mentioning the firm as a training provider, such as the El Nacional item mentioned above. Fails WP:NCORP; a redirect to Avia Solutions Group where it is briefly covered could be an option. AllyD (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may need to be shortened a bit to meet encyclopedic requirements, but there is no reason to doubt the article's significance --Well I dont (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is a WP:SPA and likely a UPE. scope_creep^Talk 15:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Maybe the whole article is UPE as assumed by creep. Okoslavia (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2024 (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. Sandstein 19:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karachi Football League[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Pakistan. Joeykai (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur that it fails WP:GNG. Also a regular target of disruptive editing. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pakistani football league system as possible search term. Giant Snowman 13:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~This is a good WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
It's not mentioned at the target article, so isn't a good place to redirect. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be honest I am not sure I truly understand this nomination, there are lots of different sources for the league, databases, primary news sourcing, teams, sponsors, other stuff. Google had lots of different things for a 21 year period of history. So I am myth'ed by the nomination. I feel it is better to redirect points to this article. And the article could possibly be expanded on. Govvy (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, why would you redirect an article that already has some sourcing to an article with no sourcing at all. I don't get that logic either. Govvy (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, and don't see value in redirecting to Pakistani football league system, where this league isn't mentioned. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Semi-professional league with no independent coverage. - Altenmann >talk 02:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Altenmann, How are major media outlets such as The Nation (Pakistan) and The News International not independent? Nfitz (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: with no significant independent coverage. The sources you cited simply mention the league, without any encyclopedic description of it. Your user page says you are here for 18+ years, so I am surprized you dont know basic notability guidelines. Or are you just trolling me for my sloppy !vote? :-) - Altenmann >talk 22:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  FootballPakistan.com covers the league with complete depth, as it can be seen here [https://footballpakistan.com/category/local-competitions/karachi-football-league/page/3/] if I search by the hashtag there are like 80 articles (10 per page). It is a completely independent platform from the Pakistan Football Federation covering Pakistani football since 2003. Throwawayjamal047 (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Additional independent sources, prominent news outlets covering the league with match details such as Dawn [30] or The Express Tribune [31]. Throwawayjamal047 (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  That's an extremely rude and unwarranted response User:Altenmann. I'm surprised you've been here 20 years, and still don't know about the 5 pillars and that civility is paramount. I can only respond to what you say - not what I might have thought you meant. I thought you were dismissing these sources as non-independent - perhaps under some misunderstanding that the Pakistan media is government-controlled (which sounds kind of whacky - but we have had others make that argument for other nations!). Still, it's pretty clear from the discussion below, that there is significant independent reporting - so why have you not removed your "vote"? I'm also surprised that people think that any professional league would be not notable. We've had debates before about teams who were semi-professional, and players that are semi-professional - but I can't recall ever discussing an entire semi-professional league! That's normally a discussion for strictly amateur leagues! Nfitz (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Same points as @Govvy:. I did some changes to the article and the topic has decent coverage on RSSSF, appearing even on the main RSSSF page of Pakistan [32].- Throwawayjamal047 (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That reference fails WP:SIRS. Speficially, it is not WP:SIGCOV. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even the English language references here, indicate that the media cover this league. Here's some Urdu references - one, two. Was there a search for Urdu sources before the nomination? Nfitz (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:THREE, please list three references that demonstrate WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my previous replies above. Throwawayjamal047 (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those pass WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources I saw in Urdu were primary, generally non-independent coverage of events, not sustained secondary coverage of the league. For example, the Urdupoint article above is entirely reporting what the league commissioner Wahab said, not offering any secondary analysis. FPDC doesn't have any indication that it's RS.

JoelleJay (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The league has significant media coverage that passes the criteria of WP:GNG, as evidenced[33][34] by notable sources. War Wounded (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources cited by War Wounded and Nfitz. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article now has enough refs after expansion. Codenamewolf (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Football is mainly popular (at least historically) in Lyari among the community of African origin called Siddi. This is an important touranment for them and deleting it would be discrimination. We are not creating articles about individual seasons rather an overview article and for that there is enough coverage in mainstream media of Pakistan: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources now located and added which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:02, 9 February 2024 (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 01:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tupi (Hindu)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:V or WP:GNG. Searching for sources returned nothing formal, a few passing references on social media sites. Page also appears to be an abandoned draft. grungaloo (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete as dubious. In the internets I found "tupi-lungi-dari (cap, sarong,'beard)", "(tupi, a religious cap worn by Muslims)", "by what mysterious mental process a Hindu (one of their own people), suddenly makes up his mind to grow his beard, and wear a “tupi,” and call himself a Musulman;" And so on. - Altenmann >talk 02:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources, almost no content. If necessary this can be created again in the future, but a quick search finds almost nothing in English, and even the term in Sanskrit doesn't have a high number of content hits. Shazback (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23 January 2024 Russian strikes on Ukraine[edit]

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

It's enough, for two years we have not created pages for these individual mass waves of attacks against Ukraine and kept them instead at Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present). This standard was first broken with 29 December 2023 Russian strikes on Ukraine, I proposed its merger however it had been the largest of such kind of waves and most people opposed the proposal, fair enough. Then 2 January 2024 Russian strikes on Ukraine was created, unlike the earlier this one was a regular wave and its article remains very short, I've proposed its merger and for now enjoys widespread support. And now this article was created. At Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present)#Timeline you can see how there have been several dozens of these types of attacks, just look at the see also section of this article, we cannot and should not give articles to each of these attacks, much less after two years since they started. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. We cannot have an article for each single day of a war, unless this particular day was somehow special and was discussed in academic sources, rather than in regular news reports. - Altenmann >talk 02:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As noted by Altenmann (talk · contribs), WP:NOTNEWS. Unless there is something particularly notable about a specific wave of attacks, it makes much more sense to include it in the Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure (2022–present) pages where it has appropriate context. This also avoids repeating the same contextual information across multiple pages, making it easier to maintain and prevent vandalism. Shazback (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article, as well as the aforementioned previos ones, was created shortly after the attack had happened to show all the details and to bring civilized world's attention to continuing russian war crimes and atrocities towards Ukraine. Articles may be transferred in the general page but only with all of the vital information kept in there. The main preference is still the detailed information.

ThunderGit (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that ThunderGit is not extended-confirmed and cannot make edits or take part in internal project discussions (including AfD) about Russia-Ukraine war due to WP:RUSUKR. They were already alerted about this before. Mellk (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOTNEWS, impossible to maintain every day war reports in Wikipedia. CSMention269 (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Kings of Frog Island[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 16:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching the German music press only, I found reviews for the album II in Rockhard, Powermetal.de and Ox Fanzine as well as III in Metal.de. Furthermore we have Beatsperminute.com – every one I mentioned until now is reliable, as well as a miscellaneous assortment: [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] Geschichte (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kepp The Beatsperminute.com suggested above is a good source for expanding the article. I didnt look into others for I dont care. - Altenmann >talk 02:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beatsperminute.com seems to have in-depth coverage.CSMention269 (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2024 (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 11:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Television Style Awards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

My WP:BEFORE can't find any independent coverage, cites mostly to primary sources and the article doesn't attempt to demonstrate notability, only a WP:DATABASE for the awards going from 2015-2017. I don't believe this meets the advice at WP:NAWARDS nor the policies of the GNG. The article lists current as 2024, but the sources website for that says that this is the first year these have been present. So I get the sense that this might even be the conflation of two different but similar events with the same generic name. I'll note that the page was previously deleted, it would be best to review the comments there as well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Television Style Awards microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 17:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 19 January 2024 (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 00:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete the recreated page does not ensure notability. - Altenmann >talk 02:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and per previous AFD results as the current version and previous version (based on reviews by users who commented on previous AFD) as likely the same. CSMention269 (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2024 (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 14:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Tej Gyan Foundation[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. Article orphaned for a decade. Sources are mostly WP:PRIMARY. Article is basically WP:PROMO. PepperBeast (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, India, and Maharashtra. PepperBeast (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete an advert of a yet another Indian sect-like "live a good life" ...er... sect? - Altenmann >talk 02:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another one of those WP:Promo Jo the fire dragon 🐉「talk」 05:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clearly promotional ''Flux55'' (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Why this was not deleted earlier, god knows. Clearly the tone expresses NPOV issues. And Fail WP:NORG. CSMention269 (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Stoica[edit]

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

Just a dog trainer who has participated in some TV shows. I don't see much notability. By looking up Adrian Stoica on Google and scrolling down a bit I already get results from different people named this way. I also found no sources from 2022 or before talking about him after looking up his name. I had to use a more specific search in Romanian and got some sources which don't look like the most appropriate [47] [48] [49]. I do not believe this person is notable. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Italy, Romania, and United States of America. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Animal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep notability asserted: "six-time disc dog world champion", won a talent show and continues to compete. Also, there is enough detailed coverage, e.g., here. - Altenmann >talk 02:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into America's Got Talent (season 18). This strikes me as WP:1E. Unless there is significant coverage separate to the show, the present article, including Stoica's background and linking his participation in America's Got Talent: Fantasy League, could be adequately summarised in a few sentences in America's Got Talent (season 18). IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- IgnatiusofLondon (talk · contribs), I found Italian and Romanian sources from before his 2023 appearance on America's Got Talent (season 18). They are La Provincia 2014, Sala 2018, and Morosi 2016, and La Stampa 2017. Cunard (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's excellent sourcefinding. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. "Con un cane e un frisbee fino al tetto d'Europa. Splendida doppietta per Carugo e Mariano Brillano Adrian Stoica e Paola Bonomo" [With a dog and a Frisbee to the roof of Europe. Splendid double for Carugo and Mariano Brillano, Adrian Stoica, and Paola Bonomo]. La Provincia [it] (in Italian). 2014-05-24. Archived from the original on 2024-02-06. Retrieved 2024-02-06.
  The page says the full article will be available in the printed edition on newsstands. The article notes: "Adrian Stoica, 36 anni, carughese di origini rumene, e Paola Bonomo marianese 35enne, si sono aggiudicati rispettivamente i titoli di campione europeo e campionessa italiana nella disciplina, nella specialità Sky Awi. Particolare è la storia di Adrian che ha trasformato una passione in un lavoro. «Sono nato in Romania – racconta Stoica – sono arrivato in Italia a 20 anni e ho lavorato per 14 anni in un’azienda locale specializzata nella produzione di mattonelle»."
  From Google Translate: "Adrian Stoica, 36 years old, from Carugha of Romanian origins, and Paola Bonomo from Mariana, 35 years old, won the titles of European champion and Italian champion respectively in the discipline, in the Sky Awi specialty. The story of Adrian is particular, as he transformed a passion into a job. «I was born in Romania – says Stoica – I arrived in Italy at the age of 20 and worked for 14 years in a local company specialized in the production of tiles»."
2. Sala, Alessandro (2018-09-03). "Adrian Stoica: Dog trainer, campione mondiale ed europeo di «disc dog»" [Adrian Stoica: Dog trainer, world and European «disc dog» champion]. Corriere della Sera (in Italian). Archived from the original on 2024-02-06. Retrieved 2024-02-06.
  The article notes: "Dog Trainer esperto in «divertimento del cane e con il cane», attraverso la sua specializzazione sul Gioco e sugli Sport cinofili. Ex stuntman e da sempre sportivo, grazie al Disc Dog Adrian è diventato in breve tempo un professionista riconosciuto ben oltre l’Europa: negli ultimi 5 anni ha conquistato con la sua Rory due titoli di Campione del Mondo (UFO: Open 2016 e Throw & Catch 2014) e con vari cani ben 22 coppe di Campione Europeo nelle varie federazioni internazionali."
  From Google Translate: "Dog Trainer expert in «fun for the dog and with the dog», through his specialization in games and dog sports. A former stuntman and always a sportsman, thanks to the Disc Dog Adrian has quickly become a professional recognized far beyond Europe: in the last 5 years he has won two World Champion titles with his Rory (UFO: Open 2016 and Throw & Catch 2014) and with various dogs 22 European Champion Cups in the various international federations."
3. Morosi, Silvia (2016-09-15). "Acrobazie a Quattro Zampe" [Four-Legged Stunts]. Corriere della Sera (in Italian). Archived from the original on 2024-02-06. Retrieved 2024-02-06.
  The article notes: "Un nuovo record per Adrian Stoica e Rory. La coppia a sei zampe, formata da un istruttore e dal suo animale, si è vista confermare anche nel 2016 il titolo di Campioni Europei nel «Disc dog» (qui vi avevamo raccontato la Disc dog mania in Italia). Quest’anno l’impresa è stata da record: i due hanno, infatti, conquistato i sei titoli europei disponibili nelle tre federazioni internazionali più prestigiose e giocate in Europa: AWI, UFO e Skyhoundz."
  From Google Translate: "A new record for Adrian Stoica and Rory. The six-legged couple, made up of an instructor and his animal, saw their title of European Champions in the «Disc dog» confirmed again in 2016 (here we told you about the Disc dog mania in Italy). This year the feat was record-breaking: the two have, in fact, won the six European titles available in the three most prestigious international federations played in Europe: AWI, UFO and Skyhoundz."
4. Cohn, Paulette (2023-09-28). "Why Will Season 18 'AGT' Winner Adrian Stoica Buy Sheep With His $1 Million Prize?". Parade. Archived from the original on 2024-02-06. Retrieved 2024-02-06.
  The article notes: "Adrian has eight dogs that he works with – they can work individually or separately like we saw with Hurricane on AGT, but he hasn’t decided yet if he is going to bring over another of his dogs for the Las Vegas act. But it's not a problem as Hurricane can work with all his other dogs."
5. Johnson, Lottie Elizabeth (2024-01-09). "This dog act recently won 'America's Got Talent.' Now, it's competing for another win". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2024-02-06. Retrieved 2024-02-06.
  The article notes: "For the semifinal appearance, Stoica and Hurricane performed a routine where Stoica attempts to do garden work — a comedic bit that led the judges to proclaim that the act is “Vegas ready,” per the entertainment site Gold Derby. Stoica and Hurricane’s act during the finals, set to Queen’s “Crazy Little Thing Called Love,” showed Hurricane helping Stoica prep for a date with Vergara."
6. Johnson, Lottie Elizabeth (2023-09-27). "And the winner of 'America's Got Talent' is ..." Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2024-02-06. Retrieved 2024-02-06.
  The article notes: "Now, with this victory, Stoica has earned the $1 million prize and a headlining slot in Las Vegas. According to his “AGT” bio, Stoica has been performing with Hurricane for roughly eight years. The act previously reached the semifinals of “Italia’s Got Talent” in 2017 and participated in “Romania’s Got Talent” in 2018 and 2022."
7. "Ei sunt românii care au impresionat lumea întreagă la GOT TALENT! Cu ce prestații au uimit juriul" [They are the Romanians who impressed the whole world at GOT TALENT! With what performances they amazed the jury] (in Romanian). Pro TV. 2020-01-21. Archived from the original on 2024-02-06. Retrieved 2024-02-06.
  The article notes: "În anul 2017, românii au ajuns și la “Italienii au talent”: Adrian Stoica, un dresor de câini, a primit patru de “Da” din partea juriului, datorită numărului său de pe scenă. Un an mai târziu, Adrian Stoica a participat și la “Românii au talent”."
  From Google Translate: "In 2017, the Romanians also reached "Italians have talent": Adrian Stoica, a dog trainer, received four "Yes" from the jury, thanks to his number on stage. A year later, Adrian Stoica also participated in "Romanians have talent"."
8. "Italia's Got Talent, le esibizioni migliori della quinta puntata. Sia Claudio Bisio sia Frank Matano trovano la loro esibizione del cuore e schiacciano il rispettivo golden buzzer" [Italia's Got Talent, the best performances of the fifth episode. Both Claudio Bisio and Frank Matano find their heartfelt performance and crush their respective golden buzzer]. La Stampa (in Italian). 2017-03-24. Archived from the original on 2024-02-06. Retrieved 2024-02-06.
  The article notes: "La coreografia canina di Adrian Stoica. Parte seduto su un divano, deciso a mangiarsi un paninazzo di quelli che si ricordano. Poi, però, a fare compagnia ad Adrian Stoica sul palco (e a «ricordargli» della dieta in corso) arrivano i suoi due meravigliosi cani. Con cui, in pratica, l’uomo mette in scena una divertente coreografia sulla difficoltà a rimanere in forma. Una performance che sorprende e che convince."
  From Google Translate: "Adrian Stoica's canine choreography. He leaves sitting on a sofa, determined to eat a sandwich of the ones he remembers. Then, however, his two wonderful dogs arrive to keep Adrian Stoica company on stage (and to "remind" him of his ongoing diet). With which, in practice, the man stages a fun choreography on the difficulty of staying fit. A performance that surprises and convinces."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Adrian Stoica to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the claims of the other keeps. Plus, he is one of the known winners of America's Got Talent. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is shown that the article passes notability guidelines through previous editors' responses.

2600:1006:B102:8580:41E3:82B1:A61:25EB (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2024 (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.