< January 13	January 15 >

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

The result was redirect‎ to Bantay Radyo#Radio stations;. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYHH[edit]

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

No significant coverage in RS. Can be redirected to Bantay Radyo. MarioGom (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: All the sources in the article are reliable. The first two sources state that the station is licensed. Source 3) talks about the station's updates. The rest of the sources talk about the station under its former ownership. That said, though the station is off the air since 2015, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG 😎🙃 13:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Here's my source assessment:

Created with templates ((ORGCRIT assess table)) and ((ORGCRIT assess))
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
CEBU BROADCAST STATIONS
2021 NTC AM Stations
Bantay Radyo moves to new home
Nadela: Bangon Tipolo, mga hinabang gipaabot		– WP:RSOPINION
Bangon, mga Kauban
DYSB 864 kHz San Miguel Broadcasting Corp.

Yes, there are some reliable sources, but that is not sufficient to pass WP:GNG. For example, the first two sources are mere records (not significant coverage) and are primary sources. The third is not about DYHH specifically but about Bantay Radyo. It is only a passing mention, one sentence, about DYHH. For DYHH to pass WP:GNG, it requires multiple independent, secondary and reliable sources with significant coverage. That significant coverage needs to be specific about DYHH, because notability is not inherited. MarioGom (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG per Astig's argument. Sources mentioned are reliable enough and secondary, with the ones mentioned by Astig in-depth IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect: Nothing found with SIGCOV that would support a stand alone article. Name mentions, promo, database listings, are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. Redirect per nom as an WP:ATD. // Timothy :: talk 04:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Bantay Radyo#Radio stations; MarioGom's source assessment table above is spot-on, and demonstrates why this subject fails WP:N criteria. Left guide (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lucifer (magazine)[edit]

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

A non notable Theosophy magazine that has never had any reliable sources. The 3 sources on the article austheos.org.au all link to an offline website managed by the Theosophical Society. The magazine has no academic or scholarly coverage. Per lack of independent reliable sources the article should be deleted. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep It is the primary subject of Ferguson, Christine (2020). "The Luciferian Public Sphere: Theosophy and Editorial Seekership in the 1880s". Victorian Periodicals Review. 53 (1): 76–101. doi:10.1353/vpr.2020.0012. ISSN 1712-526X. It also has significant coverage in Morrisson, Mark S. (2007). "The Periodical Culture of the Occult Revival: Esoteric Wisdom, Modernity and Counter-Public Spheres". Journal of Modern Literature. 31 (2): 1–22. ISSN 0022-281X. Chapter 5 of Beauchesne, Nicholas L. (Spring 2021). "Adepts of Modernism: Magical Magazine Culture, 1887-1922". ERA. doi:10.7939/r3-6q13-d562. Retrieved 2024-01-07. is devoted to it, although this is a doctoral dissertation so per WP:SCHOLARSHIP should not be given as much weight as other sources. Citations from these sources may reveal additional coverage. Jfire (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep -whilst at this temporal remove a lot of potential sources are hardly disinterested -see for example "Open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, archived 2007-10-08". www.theosophische-informationsstelle.de., the title of the publication drew extensive criticism both contemporaneously and since, (as evidenced by a simple search), much of which will provide further source material. Yadsalohcin (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Whilst fixing no target errors I've taken the opportunity to add archive urls to the article. They are all just listings so don't add anything to the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear more opinions about the sources brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. The sources from Jfire appear to demonstrate significant coverage of this article's subject by multiple independent reliable sources. As such, this magazine appears to pass the general notability guideline, and it seems reasonable to keep it. The content could be improved, but there is certainly scholarly coverage, contrary to as stated in nom's rationale. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I'm seeing a consensus here that there is encyclopedic information on this topic, but a merger was not discussed enough to preclude a future merge discussion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

True Buddha School[edit]

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

Not notable. No in-depth coverage by RS. Title should re-direct to article about its founder Lu Sheng-yen. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Buddhism, Taiwan, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Kniss, Fred; Numrich, Paul D. Sacred Assemblies and Civic Engagement: How Religion Matters for America's Newest Immigrants. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. p. 154. ISBN 978-0-8135-4170-9. Retrieved 2024-01-07 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Contrast the English printed materials at this temple with those at one of our Buddhist project sites, Ling Shen Ching Tze Temple, Chicago. Here the visitor receives booklets and periodicals produced by the temple's parent organization, the True Buddha School (TBS), and prominently featuring its founder, Grand Master Sheng-yen Lu. These materials often include a list of more than two dozen TBS local chapters throughout North America, plus the home temple in Redmond, Washington, after which the Chicago temple is named. The content reflects the syncretic nature of the True Buddha School, which combines elements of Tantric Buddhism and indigenous Chinese religions and claims psychic and healing powers for Master Lu. Perusal of the True Buddha School's Web site reveals the strong sectarian identity of the group. ... This form of Buddhism is far different from the modernist Buddhism of the temple described above. In fact, a modernist Buddhist would denounce the type of empowerment promoted by the True Buddha School as nonrational, even superstitious. This group's sectarian expressions of Buddhism do not have the same appeal to non-Buddhist inquirers as modernist Buddhism. Ling Shen Ching Tze Temple has not moved very far in its civic engagement. The temple is not affiliated ..."
2. Melton, J. Gordon (2010). Melton, J. Gordon; Baumann, Todd M. (eds.). Religions of the World : a Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and Practices (2 ed.). Santa Barbara, California: ABC-Clio. pp. 2892–2894. ISBN 978-1-59884-204-3. Retrieved 2024-01-07 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "The True Buddha School teaches a form of Gelugpa Buddhism that begins for members in their taking refuge in the Three Gems of Buddhism—the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha (that is, Buddha, Truth, and Fellowship)—and additionally in the guru, their teacher. Members are taught a form of Buddhist practice that includes a daily cultivation through the recitation of Buddhist sutras, the calling upon the name of Amitabha Buddha (as in Pure Land Buddhism), and visualization of their receiving empowerment from the pantheon of Buddhist deities. This practice is believed to lead individuals to Buddhahood (enlightenment)."
  The book later notes: "The True Buddha School is one of a half dozen new Buddhist groups to emerge in Taiwan in the last generation, but is unique in adopting a Vajrayana perspective a fact that has set it in opposition to some of the Taiwanese-based Chan and Pure Land organizations. Some five million people have taken refuge in Grand Master Lu, though only a minority of those have gone on to become active members of the school and attendees at one of its centers."
3. Liu, Tannie (2010). "Globalization and Modern Transformation of Chinese Buddhism in Three Chinese Temples in Eastern Canada". In Harding, John S.; Hori, Victor Sōgen; Soucy, Alexander Duncan (eds.). Wild Geese: Buddhism in Canada. Montreal: McGill–Queen's University Press. p. 285–291. ISBN 978-0-7735-3667-8. Retrieved 2024-01-07 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "The True Buddha School is a controversial group among the Chinese sangha due to Lu's innumerable claims in his writings and lectures to extraordinary religious experiences and spiritual attainments. Lu admits that in the course of his career he has received massive criticism particularly from the dominant Chinese Buddhist sangha. ... In spite of the worldwide presence of the True Buddha School which currently has 282 chapters (True Buddha School Net), Lu advocates group practice but not necessarily the building of temples. He believes that the collective mind present during group practice is optimum in securing one's goal. The earliest organizations of TBS had no formal structure and some were housed in an apartment or a house or commercial buildings. But the diamond masters (meaning the lineage holders) were handpicked by Master Lu based on a system of astrology and intuition. The masters can be married. Because they are deemed to be incarnated masters, their status is much higher than the monks and nuns in the order. ... True Buddha School Comes to Canada. The earliest temple of the TBS in Canada is the PTT Buddhist Society (formerly Pu Te Town) at 514 Keefer Street, Vancouver, British Columbia. With 6,000 square feet including the basement, it was converted from a Christian church and modelled after the Potala Palace in Lhasa. The second temple in Canada was the Ling Shen Ching Tze Temple (Jim Sim Branch) at 18 Trojan Gate, Unit A&B, Scarborough, Ontario inside a commercial building. The TBS currently has eleven chapters in Canada."
4. Irons, Edward A. (2008). Melton, J. Gordon (ed.). Encyclopedia Of Buddhism. New York: Facts On File. pp. 520–523. ISBN 978-0-8160-5459-6. Retrieved 2024-01-07 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "The True Buddha school emerged in the 1990s out of the life and experience of Master Lu Shen-Yen (1945). Master Lu had a deep religious experience in 1971 that led him from his Christian upbringing into a period of seeking, study, and learning. ... As of 2005, the students of the True Buddha School (TBS) had established more than 300 centers for TBS practice and worship. These temples operate independently of Master Lu and the school’s international leadership but receive a charter and basic guidelines from the school. Participation in a center is not required, but most students find the local centers and the senior disciples in residence helpful to their progress. Master Lu has appointed a number of teaching masters. It is from among the teaching masters that a central committee is selected to oversee the school internationally. It oversees, for example, publishing and outreach programs. These have somewhat gone hand in hand, and while the school is still based primarily in the Chinese diaspora, a concerted effort has begun to translate Master Lu's writings into different local languages from Malay and Indonesian to English, French, Spanish, and Russian."
5. Goossaert, Vincent; Palmer, David A. (2011). The Religious Question in Modern China. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 299. ISBN 978-0-226-30416-8. Retrieved 2024-01-07 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "the True Buddha School 真佛宗, which was founded in 1969 through the revelation of a spirit medium of a Cihuitang spirit-writing temple to a member of the Presbyterian Church, Lu Shengyan 盧勝彥 (b. 1945). In the revelation, Lu Sheng-yan was ordered to accept instructions from Taoist masters, with whom he studied for a few years; eventually he turned increasingly to Tibetan Buddhism. The True Buddha School, which established its headquarters in Seattle, Washington, USA, in the early 1990s, offered practitioners a combination of body cultivation and meditation with congregational participation in Tantric rituals, as well as a relatively easy progression through a spiritual hierarchy. Mail-order initiations could be conferred through visualizations, by sending an application card and check to the head office in Seattle. In this fashion, the number of "members" increased from 40,000 in 1984 to 4 million in 1996."
6. Melton, J. Gordon (2021). "Making Sense of the New Un-Sinicized Religions on China's Fringe". In Madsen, Richard (ed.). The Sinicization of Chinese Religions. Leiden: Brill Publishers. p. 166. ISBN 978-90-04-46517-6. ISSN 1877-6264. Retrieved 2024-01-07 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "The True Buddha School, a relatively new esoteric Buddhist group based on Taichung, has built a large following from Korea to Japan and ..."
7. Tam, Wai Lun (2001). "Integration of the Magical and Cultivational Discourses. A Study on a New Religious Movement Called the True Buddha School". Monumenta Serica. 49: 141–169. JSTOR 40727437.
  The article notes: "The True Buddha School belongs to an esoteric form of Buddhism known as the Diamond Vehicle or Vajrayāna (mizong 密宗). Its members are mostly Chinese. It was started in 1973 in Taiwan but it also attracts members from Chinese communities all over the world. The school calculated the number of its members in 1984 as forty thousand, but in twelve years it had increased one hundred times and numbers over four million today. We were told that their membership count is based on the issuance of membership certificates. Anyone who wishes to "take refuge" in the founder of the school would do so either by going directly to the headquarters of the school, which is now in Seattle, or by sending a letter of request together with a sum of money in a red envelope. An initiation ritual called consecration or empowerment (guanding 灌頂) can be done in person or by remote initiation (yaoguan 遙灌) that involves a magic performance by the founder of the school (sending of deities to carry out the consecration) and a visualization of the consecration process by the would-be disciple. The convenience of having the form of remote initiation certainly helps the school to develop fast."
8. Tam, Wai Lun (2016). "The Tantric Teachings and Rituals of the True Buddha School". In Gray, David B.; Overbey, Ryan Richard (eds.). Tantric Traditions in Transmission and Translation. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 308–330. ISBN 978-0-19-976368-9. Retrieved 2024-01-07 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "A recent development in the teachings of the True Buddha School is an attempt to integrate the Chan School of thought with the Tantric teachings in the form of commentary on the Chan text Wudeng Huiyuan 五燈會元 (Lu 2005, Bk 182; 2006, Bk 184, 188; 2007 Bk 192, 195; 2008, Bk 199; 2009, Bk 207, 211). Emphasis is put on the potentiality for Buddhahood that existed embryonically within all sentient beings as the womb of the Tathāgata (tathāgatagarbha). This new development uses Chan concepts, such as the idea of a teaching that does not rely on the written word but instead points directly to the human mind. The analysis of this process of integration of Chan Buddhism with Tantric Buddhism in the True Buddha School, however, has to be addressed in a future publication."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow True Buddha School (Chinese: 真佛宗) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for finding these good sources, which I failed to find. I searched News for mentions, but I failed to search books or scholarly research. The article needs real improvement from sources like these. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to Lu Sheng-yen: I don't think the above is SIGCOV, and this will fit well and improve the target article. Right now both the article have questionable notability, together along with the sources above they make one passable article. Ping me if there is a strong argument for reversing the merge order. // Timothy :: talk 04:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Cunard's sources above. The religious school appears to be notable. A source in a non-English language is not a problem, but the article needs improvement in terms of sources. We should not consider votes from auto-delete voters like above. 1.47.195.61 (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear further review of newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timothy K. Blauvelt[edit]

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

The BLP of an academic does not seem to me to meet WP:NPROF. Google Scholar shows 436 citations. Mccapra (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Georgia (country). Mccapra (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this person squarely meets the criterion of "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Having hundreds of citations is A LOT, since this is an area of study that only has a few dozen people studying it, and almost no endowed chairs. It would, I cannot find another word, highly discriminatory against smaller countries if this kind of scholarship gets deleted. Please withdraw this. Hundnase (talk) Hundnase (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

have you been involved in contacting Mr. Blauvelt, pretending to be an admin? This is super dodgy. There is some scam. Please respond. Also, there is ZERO justification for deleting articles of people who are widely published in their field. Hundnase (talk) Hundnase (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’ll assume that the question is directed at me as the nominator. No I have not contacted Mr Blauvelt, or pretended to be an admin. I don’t need to be an admin to nominate an article for deletion. As I said to you on my talk page I am happy to follow consensus with my nominations and if the consensus is to keep, that’s fine. Now I will ask - since you seem to know that someone has contacted Mr. Blauvelt, have you been in contact with him yourself, and what is your relationship with him? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is a standard scam. The scammers contact the subjects of Wikipedia biographies, pretending that either they can unilaterally delete the article or that they can save it from deletion, and demanding money. They are generally not the people they claim to be, and have no such power. Ignore them. Because they are not actually Wikipedia editors, we cannot prevent them from making these false claims. At worst they can flood this discussion with opinions that the closing administrator is also likely to ignore. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak keep. The "this is a low-citation field so we have to accept low citations as evidence for notability" argument does not convince me; for one thing, a significant part of his work is in cultural linguistics, which is not actually a low-citation field. Anyway, I do not see the citation record needed to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. The best shot at notability appears to be through book authorship, published reviews, and WP:AUTHOR. I found and added to the article five reviews of a single authored book, and two reviews of an edited volume. That's barely enough for a weak keep, for me, because there is only one authored book and the edited volume doesn't count for as much. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thanks -- agree with the Weak Keep, as an approach. Also, to be clear, his main work is in Georgia Soviet history, including Soviet archives, and specifically Georgia squarely IS a low citation field. (I work in this field also, and have worked to increase coverage on Wikipedia. I think if we want to have good coverage on Wikipedia, we should not knock out fields simply because the countries are small.) Thanks for highlighting that the scam is unconnected to this specific discussion. Hundnase (talk) Hundnase (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment As someone else who has worked in this specific, and indeed small, field, I can also attest that Blauvelt is not an unknown scholar but someone who has credibility. I've added some more of his publications to further confirm that, though also must disclose that I do know him somewhat informally. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as stated above, and here more formally put, having 400 citations for a field of Caucasus & Georgia history is a lot. (The rector of the leading local university has about 25 citations in total, for comparison.) The study of the Caucasus is a fairly small field, with established scholars fitting into a bus. So in this context, his work in my view is notable. I am the article creator, and have worked to bring more of Wikipedia to Georgia, and more of Georgia to Wikipedia, and so obviously have an interest, but also think that Wikipedia should absolutely pay attention to things that are not just mainstream. (Separately on my comments above, it seems that scammers jumped on the discussion, which indeed I should have ignored in this discussion. My apologies for mixing this into it.) The deletion discussion has led to more citations/work being added, so I think this was a good result. Hundnase (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Timothy K. Blauvelt is a well-known expert and a person who contributed immensely to a number of fields. He has more than 400 citations for a field of Caucasus & Georgian history - that's a lot for a field represented so little. --DerFuchs (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Screencorder[edit]

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

Ithas some coverage, but it doesn't seem to be enough to meet WP:N. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve this; I am not an expert in this area so hopefully someone who is can point out if I have missed something. Boleyn (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMOTION. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant secondary sources. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of current Professional Fighters League fighters[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced stats page that claims to be a mirror of https://www.tapology.com/fightcenter. Fails WP:LISTPEOPLE, WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMIRROR. The page is a huge BLP violation: reporting that athletes failed drug tests without rock-solid sources is irresponsible. A somewhat more encyclopedic presentation of the same information can be found in 2023 in Professional Fighters League. pburka (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, and Martial arts. pburka (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep The accusation that the failed drug tests are some falsely manufactured thing is somewhat absurd, when the PFL drug failures were very widely reported on, and the fighters with wikipages have it cited and referenced in their respective arcticles. Likewise 2023 in Professional Fighters League is not a fair representation of the current roster, as some fighters don't appear in the yearly season due to injury or other factors, HOWEVER they are still under contract with the promotion. Also it's not a mirror of tapology, it clearly states that the fighter records are retrieved from there. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Abject failure of NOT. Reproducing primary-sourced rosters, especially of non-notable people, is clearly unencyclopedic.

JoelleJay (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except they are not primary sourced, the accusation that the OP is making is fundamentally false. I think there is an abject indifference or misunderstanding to what that article is. Likewise, that accusation that everyone is "non-notable" is a hvague statement since a quick glance shows that almost half of them are notable. HeinzMaster (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NLIST. Listing people who are simply under contract to an organization/business is not something any listmaker outside that business has any interest in. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assume you have no knowledge about combat sports because knowing who is under contract with a promotion is somewhat important. It's actually a statement that is contrary to all sports, that's like saying that no one outside of the business has interest in who is on a NFL or NBA team. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The NFL and NBA are a whole different kettle of fish. They have independent sportswriters, analysts and commentators discussing, among other things, trades and salary caps. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The same thing can be said about mma promotions. A fighter signing with a promotion is usually reported on. HeinzMaster (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NLIST. "Current" is not manageable. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 11:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Small and Medium Business Development Agency (Azerbaijan)[edit]

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

This Azerbaijani state initiative was created in 2018 and a COI account that spams Azerbaijan government content immediately created a Wikipedia article for it. There is nothing that indicates that the subject is notable. There is no independent reliable sourcing of the subject – it's only covered by Azerbaijani government outlets. Thenightaway (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep I have no trust in Thenightaway nominations, this is an article about a government agency. I feel it's perfectly an acceptable article under WP:NORG. Regards. Govvy (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many states have some kind of office or agency oriented around small businesses promotion, yet the only Wikipedia article for those agencies is the US Small Business Administration, which has lots of RS coverage. What exactly is there about this Azerbaijani office created in 2017 that makes you say it meets notability requirements? Simply being a government body of some sort is not a notability requirement. Every subdivision or office of a government bureaucracy does not inherently have notability. Thenightaway (talk) 16:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: being a government agency does not provide automatic notability. Owen× ☎ 21:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NORG. All sources fails WP:IS. #2 is routine mill news based on gov press release. BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS. Azerbaijan government sources are not independent reliable sources. // Timothy :: talk 05:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ricardo Tejedo[edit]

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

Successful voice actor, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Mexico. Owen× ☎ 21:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:34, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hicaz Hümâyun Saz Semâisi[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 22:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NMG due to lack of significance. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom does not meet NMG.Tame Rhino (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paul Luna[edit]

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

It is hard to rad through the fact that this is written by a nearly-WP:SPA in a promotional way, but it doesn't appear that there are the sources available online to establish he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Food and drink, and Georgia (U.S. state). Owen× ☎ 09:57, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Still opening restaurants in 2021 that I can find, but nothing about a "mad genius" or whatever flowery terms thrown around in the article. Very spammy article with nothing for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep There's enough sustained coverage in Atlanta-area papers to satisfy WP:GNG. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Jfire (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak Keep Yeah, WP:PROMO article, but subject has pretty good coverage in the area. TLA (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dysard Dageago[edit]

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

Analysis of the sources listed and google searches provided no SIGCOV beyond mentions in passing. Fails notability guidelines ~~and never won a medal.~~ disproven by Habst – he did win a medal in the Micronesian games InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Oceania. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, thank you for nominating the article because it gives us a chance to improve it. In addition to the prose-based, non-database coverage in The Guardian already cited, I added a source that Dageago won a second international medal at the 2018 Micronesian Championships, in addition to his bronze from 2016. The assertion that he "never won a medal" is not true, he won at least two international medals which satisfies WP:NATH. --Habst (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where is the SIGCOV? The Guardian mentions him in passing, which explicitly does not fulfill SIGCOV. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You added a facebook picture he's tagged in as a ref, come on! JoelleJay (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for your comment. What the Facebook source establishes is verifiability. WP:Verifiability is a policy; WP:Notability is a guideline. In the mean time, I have added a PDF source that says the same information I was able to find. --Habst (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The facebook post most certainly does not establish verifiability, which requires a source be reliable. Some random person's facebook picture that happens to tag what may be Dysard Dageago's personal profile in it is an unreliable SPS, and frankly I am astounded someone with autopatrolled perms would not only think this BLP violation was acceptable but would also add the ref back in after it was removed! I have again deleted this link. JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for helping to scrutinize the sources because it makes the article better. As there is a separate PDF source confirming the same fact now, the Facebook photo is no longer necessary. The tag isn't helpful in this case, the photo (or in this case the document published by Athletics Oceania) of the results is what is most helpful. Because it was published by Dageago on his own account, I think it would fall under the WP:ABOUTSELF policy, which allows Facebook links for uncontroversial statements about oneself such as the medal -- which has since been backed up by the official results anyways. --Habst (talk) 13:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BLP would actually likely oppose it based on the discussion so far – an olympic medal is most certainly an extraordinary claim which should not be relied upon using Facebook. Use BLP only for a claim on the level of "Taylor Swift is a fan of Tom Holland movies". InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@InvadingInvader, thank you for commenting. I wholly agree about your scenario, but it does not describe the scenario being discussed right now. Dageago is not making any claim as to an "Olympic medal", but a Micronesian Athletics Championships medal, which would be not extraordinary for a Micronesian professional sportsperson to have. The discussion is moot anyways, because a non-Facebook source was found. --Habst (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok so he won that medal. Can you find any non-database SIGCOV that doesn't mention him in passing? And did he do anything else that was notable? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The photos do not appear to have been published by Dageago but rather by a different person, who has tagged Dageago. JoelleJay (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for responding. Yes, but then Dageago published the collection on his page, where I found it, so ABOUTSELF would apply. We have already found another source substantiating the same claim, so it is a moot point anyways.

What do you think about the coverage in The Telegraph I found? I was wondering if you could try to find the original video, as it might have even more expansive coverage of Dageago. --Habst (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, this is Dageago mentioned in passing. This ain't SIGCOV buddy. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@InvadingInvader, thank you for clarifying. Considering the passage in The Telegraph is a summary of a video, don't you think the original video might have significant coverage of Dageago? I don't think we should make a deletion decision until at least we can find the footage describing Dageago that we already know exists. --Habst (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do NOT think that the video will have coverage of Dageago. If the transcript is representative of the entire ordeal, and Dageago is only mentioned once, it is reasonable to say by socratic method that the video will not prominently cover Dageago at all aside from maybe a single shot saying who he is and he's running a race. That is not enough SIGCOV to justify the retention of this article at all. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@InvadingInvader, thank you for replying. I don't think that "transcript" accurately represents Telegraph source -- it is not a transcript, but a live blog only pointing out selected snippets. And if that is true, could you help find the video to verify that anyways? The athletes deserve us making our best attempt to find significant coverage, and it would helpful to rule that out as a source so we could focus on finding other media -- perhaps some coverage from KSPN2 News exists as well. --Habst (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Considering this video would almost certainly be a primary source anyway, on top of not containing anything on Dageago, tracking it down would be a waste of time. JoelleJay (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for responding. I don't think the video would necessarily be a primary source, it seems the presenters are journalists for the BBC covering the championships which Dageago participated in. There is also the possibility of other outlets picking it up as well. I still think our best shot is for local Nauran coverage, but we should definitely turn all stones before making a deletion decision. --Habst (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Live coverage of an event is primary. There is nothing whatsoever to indicate Dageago received secondary SIGCOV anywhere. JoelleJay (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for responding. We are looking for non-live, secondary, significant coverage, either of Dageago's World Championships performance or of his two Micronesian medals, or of something else entirely. A news report by KSPN2 News might fulfill that, or a report on his WC appearance. Especially given that we know coverage on at least one of these exists (because there is a report of it in The Daily Telegraph), I think it is incumbent upon us to find that coverage, and then we can assess its usefulness to the article. --Habst (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't look like such coverage exists. It's going to take a miracle for us to save this article. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also Habst, consider re-reading BLP. It's definitely a struggle to edit these articles – something I know first hand. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If Dageago published the collection on his page, then why is the link to another person's facebook post? You cannot do that. JoelleJay (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for responding. I am not sure if there is a way to show the posting on Dageago's profile in a way that is compatible with ((Facebook)), but it is there on his page. The reason why I copied the link was to verify Dageago's medal at the 2018 Micronesian Championships, which has now been corroborated by another official source anyways, and there is no Facebook link in the article any more which I agree with. I think that the more important discussion we should be having is about the notability of Dageago and his suitability for a Wikipedia article. --Habst (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which based on the lack of SIGCOV we've found, he ain't got no notability. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Zero SIGCOV, not even a full sentence on him anywhere.

JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Micronesian Championships is not a "major international competition". It's both small-scale and certainly less prestigious than the Asian Games. JoelleJay (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JoelleJay, thank you for your response. The Micronesian Championships are an international championship that receives TV and print coverage -- for an example of how the 2018 Micronesian Championships was covered, see this video. The results show that events have several rounds to qualify for the finals, as mentioned in WP:NATH point #1. Understanding that in small countries like these, a lot of information can shared off-internet, I think that video shows that there may be some specific coverage of Dageago to be found about his championship performance. What do you think? --Habst (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

None of that makes this a major senior-level international competition. The Asian Games isn't even prestigious enough to warrant inclusion for medalists, it only gets into the criterion though its large field. The Micronesian Championships isn't notable enough for its own page, it's just listed as one of the "regional championships" within Oceania Athletics, so definitely doesn't qualify for NATH1. There is zero evidence to presume any secondary SIGCOV exists. JoelleJay (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: One mention in a RS that I see, [6], rest are photo captions. No sort of coverage about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 00:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fantasize (Ariana Grande song)[edit]

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

Should be a candidate for speedy deletion per WP:HAMMER. "Fantasize" is not a confirmed song title, all of the sources say "fans called it 'Fantasize". None of the sources nor the artist confirmed that the song was ever intended to be included on Grande's 7th album. The information contained, promotes leaked music which is an infringement of the artist's right to copyright. Furthermore, the claims of Spotify charting are unsubstantiated and non-significant per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Overall its full of speculation and WP:SYNTHESIS >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - I've culled a bunch of the unsourced and original research. There's not a lot left, and the more I look, the more I see wrong. Leaning delete, though the attention/streams it's achieved in its unofficial release is quite the feat. I'm wondering if a passing mention could be worth it somewhere on her article. Sergecross73 msg me 21:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The trouble is, we don't know where this song was intended to be. Its best mentioned on the artist's page as we don't know what album or project it was intended for or when it was recorded. Its not that unusual, "When Love Takes Over" was leaked by David Guetta and Kelly Rowland. A bootleg version with a different production and different vocalist was rush-released and uploaded to streaming websites. Its also impossible to verify spotify streams as they're not static. When a deletion conversation is active, you shouldn't change/remove info from the article. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The artists page is what I had I mind. You're incorrect on that last bit though. The article shouldn't be eliminated, like in a redirect or a merge type action, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with adding or removing content during an AFD, as long as you've got proper grounds for the removal. (Info being unsourced, original research, incorrect, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Articles on leaked music aren't inherently copyright infringement, see New Body, LA Monster, Pissy Pamper, etc. Furthermore, the song title being unofficial is not a reason to delete, there do seem to be quite a few reliable sources covering this song so the HAMMER essay doesn't really apply. I'm leaning keep, but unsure as of now. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, being leaked isn't the issue, it's really about whether or not it meets WP:NSONGS and avoids any WP:MERGEREASONs. Sergecross73 msg me 01:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not having a confirmed title matters massively. We generally don't keep articles or have for bodies of work that are unnamed. For example "Upcoming Seventh Album" wouldn't be a viable page. Given that the name of the song is not confirmed, this page should be titled "Leaked Ariana Grande song" which would not be classified as encyclopedic content. As Serge said too, there's WP:V and WP:NSONGS issues too. Some coverage from a variable quality of sources, single vendor chart (which isn't reliable for inclusion) and being named by fans doesn't equal official title. The information would be notable for inclusion on the artist's page but not as a standalone topic. And while a leaked song itself is not promotional/copyright infringement, when the artist has spoken unfavourably about the leak and confirmed it was unfinished, and the article was written like fansite/promotional tone, there is reason to ask why its on Wkipedia. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 11:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We generally do not because they are unlikely notable, but it's not against any guidelines. Look at Upcoming Ariana Grande album or Upcoming Playboi Carti album. Many artists have spoken about hating leaks, to go back to my earlier examples look at Kanye West, many of his leaked songs get articles, and even a leaked album had a page before being merged. Just because they don't like it, we shouldn't delete. The NSONGS issues are the only ones keeping me from saying keep, I'll do some more thinking. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The thing is, I did state that “Fantasize” was a fan-made title. A note next to the song’s title saying that the song was not named before leaking could work— But, I do think that the page should exist though since well, the song was illegally uploaded to streaming services and was able to chart on various Spotify Charts and “apparently” has been played on radio too. LUVGALORE (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spotify charts are not valid per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Additionally, those chart positions cannot be verified. And we shouldn't call a topic by the name fans have given to it when its a body of work and its actual title doesn't exist/isn't known. That's WP:SPECULATION and not verifiable. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 11:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete and relegate it to a passing mention in the Ariana Grande article. FWIW I think Teen Vogue and Uproxx are the only reliable publications used in the article, and right now, the topic does not have enough coverage in enough RS to warrant an article. ‍ ‍ Elias 🌊 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "Will you call me?"}
_{📝 "Will you hang me out to dry?"} 00:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: As noted above, the song has limited RS and it does not appear to meet WP:NSONG. Underclass King (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete for now, per my arguments above. There's too little sourcing or (verifiable) content to warrant a stand-alone article being split off like this. Not opposed to a sourced mention at the parent article, but due to unofficial title and unwieldy disambiguation needed with it, I don't think even really think a redirect is plausible. Sergecross73 msg me 21:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: I agree with the above discussion. The topic does not meet WP:NSONG. I do not think a redirect would applicable in this case per Sergecross73's comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Don't agree with all arguments of nom as stated in my comments, but after searching a little its evident there isn't enough coverage to justify a separate article, perhaps a mention in the album it was originally meant for (not sure what this is, I'm sure someone with more knowledge could figure this out) and/or a mention in Ariana's page. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adolescent's Orquesta[edit]

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

Apart from potential WP:UPE, the article's content is based solely on a WP:SELFPUB source, and I can't seem to find anything online that meets WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: I can only find links for concerts. In the Spanish article, only the Eltiempo seems to be a RS, but it's minimal coverage. I can't find sourcing we could use. Oaktree b (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep They've had several songs that charted on Billboard's Tropical Airplay including a #1 with "Aquel Lugar and received a mention on Billboard. The article does need a rewrite, I agree. I suggest translating their article on the Spanish Wikipedia into English. Erick (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC) EDIT: Here are some articles mentioned the group:Reply[reply]
El Tiempo
Venezuelan record charts
Infobae
Milenio
Yahoo
Comment I suggest not doing that. The majority of the Spanish article is WP:PROMOTIONAL WP:COI. Look for "Aed3048" in the edit histories. Instead of referencing, they just added a bunch of promotional copywriting and links with summaries like "Hello Wikipedia Team, we have updated the information corresponding to the band's Official YouTube Channel, Instagram & Facebook, based on the Official Press Kit of the musical band and its production company, Korta Records. For those who can review this update, we of course have the official press kit, in PDF format as it is distributed to the press, to be able to attach it as a record. From already thank you very much." / "Hola Wikipedia Team, hemos actualizado información con base en el Kit de Prensa Oficial de la banda musical y su productora, Korta Records. Asimismo, hemos añadido diversas citas que corroboran los datos cardinales de la agrupación oficial. Para quien pueda revisar este update, disponemos por supuesto del kit de prensa oficial, en formato PDF tal como se distribuye a la prensa, para poder adjuntarlo a modo de constancia real de esta información. Desde ya muchas gracias."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolescent%27s_Orquesta&action=history

https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolescent%27s_Orquesta&action=history

The English was a carbon-copy of the Spanish one prior to clean-up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolescent%27s_Orquesta&oldid=1190300166

https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolescent%27s_Orquesta&oldid=156072870

I'm not auto-confirmed on the Spanish one so all I could do was delete the promo links and add a COI template. As User:Oaktree b said, there actually isn't much there. Spagooder (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, I propose it to be moved to the draft it where I can improve the article on it whenever I have time. Erick (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete For such a "notable" group, it's hard to find anything good on them. Which is probably why someone felt the COI promotional editing on the English and Spanish articles was necessary. All the mentions I see are in passing or commercial. Spagooder (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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)‎ Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Martin D. Smith[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSPORT. I have done a quick BEFORE without finding information outside of general sports databases (e.g., Soccerway). Sources exist for other footballers named Martin Smith (see Martin Smith (footballer)). Sources may also exist in Danish. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Denmark. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Granted, this was not exactly a very comprehensive article, but now I found [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. The coverage looks unusually in-depth and sustained, e.g. looking back on his career 20 years later. PS. These all pertain to the correct Martin Smith, and quite naturally they are all in Danish. Furthermore, I will take it upon myself to actually improve the article with these sources. Geschichte (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, @Geschichte! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 20:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Per Geschichte. Played for one of most prominent teams in fully pro Danish leagues and already has online sources and definitly has more offline sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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. Issues raised in nom have been addressed. Star Mississippi 02:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Qee[edit]

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

May be WP:PROMO, but all the information is based on a WP:SELFPUB reference. Nothing I could find online that meets WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as per non, lack of independant references. Teraplane (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: [13] and this [14] help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as per the sources found by Oaktree b and Cunard in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Toy2R. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 12:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 00:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toy2R[edit]

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

May be WP:PROMO, but all the information is based on a WP:SELFPUB reference. Nothing I could find online that meets WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Miller, Jade; DiNisio, Julie; Stoddard, Christine, eds. (2013). Airborne: An Anthology of the Real. Richmond, Virginia: Belle Isle Books. pp. 22, 25. ISBN 978-1-9399301-0-1. Retrieved 2024-01-17 – via Internet Archive.
  The article notes: "For instance, a company like Toy2R from Hong Kong will make a vinyl figure of a bear and then they will give that same vinyl bear to a few different artists to design. Sometimes they give you the actual vinyl toy, you paint on it and then it gets sent to a factory where it's duplicated and manufactured. But usually, what I get sent is a template in Illustrator format. It's an outline of the toy from the front, back and other sides. I can then print it out and draw on it, or do all of the designing in the computer. I usually do all of the designing in Photoshop. ... A few companies popped up that starting making designer vinyl toys. One of them is called Toy2R. They were making these little vinyl bears called "Qee." I started seeing them at my shows hanging from fan's backpacks. I went to a store here in New York City called Toy Tokyo and bought a few of them."
2. Cabrillo, James (2007-12-01). "Kinetically crafted: Super sits down with one of the biggest designer toy makers in the work". Philippine Daily Inquirer. Vol. 22, no. 356. pp. D1–D2. Retrieved 2024-01-17 – via Internet Archive.
  The article notes: "Founded by toy mastermind Raymond Choy in 1995, Toy2R (which stands for "Toy to Raymond") is among the first companies to explore the potential of the designer toy. It was created out of an obsession for art toys, and has been stretching the boundaries between product design, art, and graphics for years. ... The hard work has paid off. Aside from incredible sales figures, Toy2R has received many awards, winning the Best Block Toys Award for five consecutive years, as well as the Most Innovative Company Award and Three Toygodd Crystal awards from the Action Figure Times, the largest toy website on the Internet. ... Toy2R continues to grow, working with many renowned and up-and-coming artists. The company is expanding the definition of art, finding its creations in more and more concept stores, galleries, and mu- seums worldwide. Today, Raymond's creations are sold in 19 countries, including Russia, South Africa, and the Philippines."
3. "Toy2R". Art & Sole: Contemporary Sneaker Art & Design. London: Laurence King Publishing. 2012 [2008]. p. 231. ISBN 978-1-85669-881-8. Retrieved 2024-01-17 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Raymond Choy, president of Hong Kong-based Toy2r, opened his first toy store in 1995 after spending ten years working for a US footwear importer. Four years later, Choy decided to put all his funds into the development of his very first vinyl figure, the Toyer, and by 2001 he had developed the Qee Keychain collection, a uniquely designed keychain concept figure series."
4. Wong, Stephen (2009-01-22). "Playing with innovation pays off for toy company". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-01-17.
  The article notes: "Toy2R captured the grand award in the innovation and creativity category. ... The company is widely credited as an important player in spreading the designer toy phenomenon worldwide. ... Since 1999, the company has grown a 100 fold. In 2001, he closed his toy store to focus on his own brand. He decided to go into the mass market in 2002 with a new vinyl toy called Qee, which was smaller in size and more affordable in pricing. This became an instant success. There are 18 models of Qee, all of which are patented. Qee can be transformed into a key-chain, which is also patented."
5. Lubow, Arthur (2004-08-15). "Cult Figures". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-01-17.
  The article notes: "Raymond Choy, 39, is typical of the new breed of Hong Kong designer-toy manufacturer. ... Unlike Kim and Chan, who aspire to fulfill a designer's vision, Choy searches out new artists who will be willing to collaborate on a profitable toy. Like other manufacturers, his company, Toy2R, makes use of technological advances that permit a factory to interrupt a run to change colors and create limited editions. For most of the Hong Kong artists, however, limiting the edition was a way to present the product as an art object and to maintain quality control. At Toy2R, a limited edition is merely a marketing ploy. There are so many different versions of Toy2R's Qees that the profusion becomes bewildering."
6. Peng, Zihao 彭子豪 (2015-05-28). "電腦展亮相貼近玩家周氏國際秀文創力 Choicee Qee Robot打先鋒" [Computer show debut close to players. Choicee Qee Robot is a pioneer in international cultural and creative show]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese).
  The article notes: "近年以全球街頭時尚潮牌天王品牌Ed Hardy、香港知名公仔品牌Toy2R打響設計知名度的周氏國際（Choice Only），在2015台北國際電腦展中將（6月2~6日）以堅強的設計能力告知全球ICT產業，台灣文創「原力」已可與國際相抗衡。"
  From Google Translate: "In recent years, Choice Only, which has gained design fame with global street fashion king brand Ed Hardy and Hong Kong's well-known doll brand Toy2R, will use its strong design capabilities at the 2015 Computex Taipei (June 2-6). Inform the global ICT industry that Taiwan’s cultural and creative “power” can now compete with the world."
7. Chen, Yunshang 陳雲上 (2006-04-01). "Toy2R三款公仔贈車主" [Toy2R three dolls for car owners]. United Evening News [zh] (in Chinese).
  The article notes: "Toy2R的設計製作概念，讓公仔不僅是收藏擺飾品，也是精緻、簡單的生活用品，裝上盒內附的Key Chain，MINI Qee Bear搖身變為吊飾或鑰匙圈。"
  From Google Translate: "Toy2R's design and production concept makes the doll not only a collection of accessories, but also an exquisite and simple daily necessities. With the Key Chain included in the box, the MINI Qee Bear can be transformed into a pendant or keychain."
8. Li, Changhong 李昌鴻 (2016-03-14). "蔡漢成：創意設計成致勝法寶" [Raymond Choy: Creative design is the magic weapon for winning]. Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-01-17.
  The article notes: "港商玩具易集團Toy2R創辦人、QEE品牌設計總監蔡漢成 ..."
  From Google Translate: "Raymond Choi, founder of Toy2R Group and QEE brand design director ..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Toy2R (traditional Chinese: 玩具易集團; simplified Chinese: 玩具易集团) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as per the fantastic sourcing by Cunard. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 12:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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. Daniel (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Manoj Anand[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. No independent sources that I can find and the Hindi version of this article is similarly under-referenced. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Uttar Pradesh. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep The person on whom this article is mentioned has worked in many notable films ranging from Hindi cinema to English cinema and its information is easily available on Google. The actor has worked in many films of national and international level. These are remarkable actors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by अ-ह (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @अ-ह: being in many notable films does not make that actor notable under Wikipedia's guidelines. To show notability, that person needs to have significant coverage in reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Notability isn't inherited. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question: WP:NACTOR says that an actor may be considered notable if "the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Does that contradict what you're saying about inheritability, or am I misunderstanding it? Toughpigs (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NACTOR is not a secondary notability guideline; it just indicates that something will generally have SIGCOV in RSes if it meets that criterion: Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Additionally, acting in minor roles generally doesn't meet NACTOR, otherwise every working actor would meet that guideline. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Article fails wp:n with unreliable sources. Source like rottentomatoes do not even have any significant information on this actor. RangersRus (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Third battle of Anandpur (1704)[edit]

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

No reliable sources were used. User has a history of making poorly sourced articles, sometimes with copyright violations, that aggrandize the Sikh side in armed conflicts. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Analysing references from a version before cleanup, the first source is a no-byline compilation from the religious portal allaboutsikhs.com, the second source is self-published and the third source from a self-published novel-author is "historical fiction". Unless WP:HISTRS sources are provided to determine notability WP:NEVENT, fiction has no place here. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 10:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Sources before cleanup were all unreliable. This is one of those many articles where the editor has no WP:COMPETENCE that could result in any benefaction. This article has no significant notability with no coverage from scholarly sources. RangersRus (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 Ri-Karlo Handy. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sunwise Media[edit]

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

Fails CORPDEPTH. Nexttv is a trade publication and should not contribute to notability. The rest of the sources and sources I've found online are just brief mentions of the company. The source added in good faith after removing PROD does not even mention the company. This can maybe be merged with Ri-Karlo Handy, but I think that article already has the relevant information about the company and adding more would be undue. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, and Companies. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect – per nom, there doesn't appear to be good WP:SIGCOV, a lot are mentions of the company in trade magazines. TLA (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect It doesn't seem like there's enough for a standalone article. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 Electricity by country. History remains underneath should a merger be desired. Star Mississippi 02:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of countries by electricity exports[edit]

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

Single-column table, data already contained in Electricity by country, should be a redirect. Wizmut (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also nominating the complementary List of countries by electricity imports. Wizmut (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect per nomination. Or maybe delete since it seems like an unlikely redirect. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect all All of these should be linked together in one AFD since its the same thing. You nominated List of countries by electricity imports separately. Need them bundled together along with List of countries by electricity production, since all this information is at Electricity by country. Dream Focus 12:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The production article has a second table with more detail. I intend to refurbish that article so a detailed table is at the top.

So far as I can tell bundling is done just by adding the deletion tag to the second article, linking it here and mentioning the second article here. Wizmut (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with ~~List of countries by electricity consumption~~ Electricity by country: and do the same with List of countries by electricity imports. We don't need three separate tables when one with two extra columns would be more useful. Owen× ☎ 16:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC) Merge target updated per Wizmut. Owen× ☎ 16:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge with the consumption list or the overall list? The info is already in the latter. Wizmut (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point! Electricity by country would be the natural target, but List of countries by electricity consumption is better written. I'd be happy with either, but the correct approach would be to merge all, including List of countries by electricity production, into a better written version of Electricity by country. Owen× ☎ 16:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment this is a very interesting list, it may be a good idea to merge with Electricity by country --Devokewater|(tαlk) 11:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 Greta Van Fleet. History remains under the redirect should there be a desire to merge Star Mississippi 17:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Josh Kiszka[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is about a band member of Greta Van Fleet, one of several cookie-cutter style articles. It doesn't show much notability separate from the band, apart from his anouncement of his same sex relationship, picked up by Billboard and Rolling Stone. Suggest the article is redirected to Greta Van Fleet until he does something notable outside of the band. Sionk (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Kiszka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Kiszka. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge/redirect Much of the content is about the band's activities, not him in particular. Reywas92^Talk 14:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Greta Van Fleet. We went through this exact process back in 2018, as there were separate articles for all three of the Kiszka brothers and the consensus was that those articles merely repeated info about the band as a whole. All three articles were recreated by the same user a few weeks ago, and that user is probably unaware of those old events. But once again the articles simply repeat info about the band's history with a few non-notable snippets about musical influences. Josh is a possible exception because he got some news coverage for his personal life, but that can be mentioned at the band's article and does not justify yet another repeat of the band's general history. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLA (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 00:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pranvera[edit]

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

Fails WP:NNAME. I cannot find reliable sources for this name and it is all WP:ROUTINE databases and baby name websites. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Lists of people, Lists, and Albania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Only one person listed and that is too non-notable. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary of names so fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and no current bearers of the name in Wikipedia per Special:AllPages/Pranvera. Geschichte (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Improve and expand as needed, do not delete.

Comment Do you have any better argument to offer than "expand, improve, do not delete"? And you forgot to sign your comment, User:Bookworm857158367. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name articles should have origins and etymological information and listed references. One notable person is listed with the name. Expansion would logically include listing others as they are found and finding better references. and listing others. I did a search of the name and there are several other articles that list people or characters named Pranvera in passing, including at least one politician. This strongly suggests that there are probably notable people with the name abour whom articles couldvand should probably be created. I don't have the background knowledge to do this, but someone who speaks Albanian could. I do not think the article should be nominated for deletion when references are listed. As far as I know, it is not necessarily the responsibility of someone voting here to improve the article; just to note that it probably can be improved. I know we have a difference of opinion on this subject in general. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply Except the person listed isn't notable and just "having references" doesn't prove notability. I am unsure of the notability of the others with the name, but the article could be resurrected in the future if biographies are made; I myself have no experience in creating biographies. Otherwise, we'd just be preemptively creating name pages because someone notable might come along in the future with the name. And you should probably sign your comment. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That’s the disagreement. I don’t see the point in deleting an already existing article that could be improved. I do think having references that indicate the information is factual is reason enough to keep it around until someone comes along who can access the Albanian sources and expand upon it. There is no particular urgency about getting rid of this particular article. It provides information and what it says about the name is accurate. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply The only way I can see it being improved is by adding people with Wikipedia articles who have the name, and there is no way of knowing if any will be created in the near future. I doubt there will be sufficient sources in Albanian if there is no WP:SIGCOV in English, though I cannot be sure. In any case this stems back to the main problem of notability per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Urgency? Maybe not, but Wikipedia is not a compendium of names and there is no point in keeping the article hanging around. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to suggest that people also take a look again at this particular policy:WP:IAR and related policies as I really think all the other policies being cited here are bureaucratic and have been getting in the way of maintaining a quality encyclopedia. If an article is unreferenced or factually inaccurate, that's a reason to correct it and call for improved citations or to remove the incorrect information. It isn't a great reason to immediately delete the article altogether. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply What I understand is that you are essentially saying that notability is bureaucratic and should be disregarded. I don't think this debate is really going to get anywhere so reply if you wish but I may not. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Depending on the article and whether it is referenced and factually accurate, yes, I think it can be bureaucratic to delete it instead of improving upon it. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply In some cases I agree it can be bureaucratic, but that's not really what I asked. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, it really depends on the article. Insistence on “notability” can indeed be bureaucratic and damaging to the encyclopedia when it’s a subject where there is no real urgency about deleting it and the article might be improved upon. If it is libelous or factually inaccurate or the references — i.e. the National Enquirer — are unreliable, then there is far, far more urgency about getting it gone right away. I am an inclusionist, which means I am generally in favor of keeping articles and providing information that might be of use to someone, somewhere, and very much against deletion because the article doesn’t meet someone else’s standard of notability. Wikipedia has become so byzantine in the past few years that only a small percentage of editors have actually decided that policy, One person’s trivia is another person’s useful. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nevan[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence for this saint's existence. Fails WP:NNAME as well, and virtually all sources I can find are unreliable databases and "baby name" websites. I would accept redirecting Nevan Krogan as an alternative to deletion. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Christianity, and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. After my own WP:BEFORE efforts here, I am unsure what to propose. As it stands, I don't support outright deletion. While the claimed Irish "saint" likely doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV (barely being name-checked in a few historical sources), it seems to me that this article is primary about the person name. Rather than a specific person of that name. And so, as noted by the nom, WP:APONOTE (rather than WP:NBIO) is what applies. And, per the guidelines on articles about person names, "A properly sourced article about a name may still be notable without a list [of >2 notable people with that name]". As, to my mind, this article is primarily about the name, and is relatively reasonably sourced, I wonder whether the criteria is met. As it's not "cut and dried" either way, in a grey-area, I'd be minded to lean towards "keep"... Guliolopez (talk) 12:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Yes, I know WP:APONOTE applies. That's part of my reasoning. May be notable, yes, but usually when they have WP:SIGCOV or some other kind of significance, such as historical. Most of the sources listed are WP:ROUTINE. I guess I'm not feeling as strongly as I did when I nominated it, though. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, expand, and improve as necessary rather than delete. It is sourced and there are more than likely additional published sources. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply Brought to you by the editor that doesn't care about notability criteria. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment User:Bookworm857158367, I am sorry for the above comment, which an admin has warned me against. I got frustrated when I believed that efforts to improve the encyclopedia were being impeded, but that was a very immature comment and I should have thought through a logical response. I won't erase it if you don't want it erased. I believe you are trying to improve the encyclopedia and I appreciate a lot of what you do for the anthroponymy subjects, as your articles generally have high standards, but I also believe some of your opinions on notability are misguided. Though I don't expect either of our opinions to change anytime soon, so hopefully we can retain respectful dialogue in the future. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as the article has been improved and expanded since nomination with the use of reliable sources references so it is now an acceptable article about the name, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
keep and expand - Brevity is not a reason for deletion. Its Islamic use will have a different origin and that section needs expansion. Whether the original person was a saint is irrelevant, and anyway many locally acknowledged early saints are not officially recognised. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply I didn't claim brevity was a reason for deletion, but I guess it does have stronger sources than most other articles I nominated. I would still prefer that it gets deleted but I no longer feel too strongly about it. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 Fujiko Mine. Star Mississippi 02:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Belinda Martínez[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Anime and manga, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Fujiko Mine with a name mention per WP:WORLDVIEW as this appears to be her most dubbed character. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I searched with spelling "Belinda Martinez" as well as found no results. Redirect to Fujiko Mine and add name mention per above --PeaceNT (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hastings Elementary School[edit]

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

Nothing special about this school, notwithstanding its "very charismatic student community". Clarityfiend (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete unless independent sources found satisfying SIGCOV requirement of GNG. As this is an elementary school and such schools have to my understanding never had a presumed notability unlike high schools, I don't see a need to redirect; however wouldn't oppose redirecting to either the suburb Hastings-Sunrise (though there's currently no education heading) or Vancouver School Board#Elementary schools. Rupples (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 close‎. Appears to have been created in error. Please use Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitrianos Juliou (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dimitrianos Juliou[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject appears to fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines, specifically WP:NBIO and WP:SPORTSPERSON; subject does not appear to be the subject of any significant coverage in reliable references. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Procedural close: this appears to be a duplicate nomination opened concurrently with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitrianos Juliou (the implied first nomination). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Possible double Twinkle click? This may be worth speedy deleting. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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. ^Complex/_Rational 23:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sotiris Argyrou[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines, specifically WP:NBIO and WP:SPORTSPERSON; subject does not appear to be the subject of any significant coverage in reliable references. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:SPORTBASIC. Just being on a team is not enough to be article worthy. I think the article would stay in draft mode long enough that it would be better to just recreate once this person is actually notable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I found some brief coverage like 24Sports but nothing that would count towards WP:GNG. I'm not convinced that he is likely to be notable in the next 6 months so I don't see draftspace being effective. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daniel Stilitz[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines, specifically WP:NBLP and WP:BIO1E. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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. ^Complex/_Rational 22:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PortClintonRadio.com[edit]

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

It edoesn't appear to meet WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now get it resolved. Boleyn (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Internet, Websites, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm surprised I didn't end up sending this to AfD or PROD. Delete as non-notable. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Even when older (pre-2021) versions of NMEDIA overpresumed notability for licensed broadcast stations, this was never extended to Internet stations, which as far as I know have always been solely judged by GNG and its requirements for significant coverage. (Note that there actually was a 2019 PROD; it was declined by the creator, in their only edit since 2010. Note also that if deleted, the disambiguation page at WPCR should be reverted to the redirect to WPCR-FM that existed before this article's creation.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: only finding passing mentions for the station. Does not meet GNG. Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 16:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cameron Peck[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:NGOLF or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Golf, Hawaii, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete ~~Comment~~ Had success as a junior (under 18) winning the US Boys Amateur (the period when the article was created). Attended Texas A&M. Tried his luck as a tour pro on the Canadian Tour (3rd tier) for 3 seasons, coming 2nd once and also 4th. Turned to college coaching. See [15] for bio. Also [16]. Mostly routine coverage, although some more detailed local coverage following his US Boys win in July 2008. ~~Leaning delete at the moment.~~ Delete, given that no one has comes up with any significant coverage. Nigej (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 and condemn to the hoax museum. ^Complex/_Rational 22:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Katherine Y. Qiu[edit]

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

This orphaned biography was created by an SPA in 2013 and both the content and the sourcing looked dubious to me. I asked at WikiProject China for someone able to verify the sources in the article and look for others. I’m very grateful to User:Folly Mox for their source analysis which I won’t repeat but can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China#Katherine Y. Qiu. This article is likely to be a hoax, or at best a completely garbled account, possibly of more than one person. Mccapra (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Literature, Politics, and China. Mccapra (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My thanks in return for Mccapra surfacing this hoax article. In brief, all the sources fail verification. What should be the strongest source does not exist. The article makes a number of highly dubious claims, including what might be a BLP violation against Qin Hui (historian). The early article history displays signs of deliberate manufacture prior to spurious sourcing, including modifying and removing claims.
WP:BEFORE did find a person by this name roughly contemporaneous with the purported subject, who published on a similar topic to the final source in the article, which is spuriously misattributed. None of the biographical details in the article match the real person.
There's nothing worth salvaging here since everything is made up. Probably qualifies for CSD G3, see linked discussion for full thoughts. Folly Mox (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above. Many thanks for discovering this. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as a hoax per Folly Mox's thorough investigation. Kanguole 20:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per linked source analysis from Folly Mox, fails WP:GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, with thanks to those who discovered this apparent hoax. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dynamic Diagrams[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully it can now be resolved. Boleyn (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Rhode Island. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – all of the information is based on the company's WP:SELFPUB website. I can't find anything online, maybe it's due to the generic name, but I doubt it meets WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 One Sports (TV channel). Star Mississippi 23:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYAN-TV[edit]

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

Tagged with lack of sources one year ago, and still unreferenced. A search by "One Sports 29" "Cebu" and DYAN-TV does not seem to yield any results providing significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. MarioGom (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment a possible alternative to deletion would be redirecting to One Sports (TV channel). MarioGom (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to One Sports (TV channel) unless the Cebu transmitter had local programming, which I doubt. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel as a viable ATD. There isn't strong consensus for a merge, bus the history remains if one is desired. Star Mississippi 23:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gal Abdush[edit]

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

The subject herself is not notable and her killing, and any disputes about the manner of her killing, can be better covered (possibly without naming her), within various pages relating to the October 7th attack/ Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel Pincrete (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: the subject has no encyclopedic notability, and there is no case for a standalone page to exist. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel. The topic is better covered here per WP:PAGEDECIDE. I look forward to all of the pro-Palestine editors just happening to have the same delete !vote and all of the pro-Israel editors just happening to have the same keep !vote as if we don't see the obvious WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior in these types of discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I look forward to all of the pro-Palestine editors just happening to have the same delete vote. Apart from the name of the victim, AFAI could see, there is no content to merge with Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel, since the content is all already there (and even her name was there until I removed it today). This is about not naming an otherwise obscure woman and her family who have already suffered enough anguish. It isn't about pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel positions. Pincrete (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pincrete: Could you explain why her name shouldn't be there? It was published in the Times as part of a landmark article with her family's permission; her sister spoke out about her on social media; and also I find it more respectful to use her name rather than refer to "the woman in the black dress".15:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only because we don't customarily name non-notable victims of crime - even when they are named in news articles - unless they reach the George Floyd level of notability, when omitting the name would become pointless. The NY Times article isn't accessible to 90+% of the world anyhow (££$$€€) and a news article doesn't remain permanently prominent in the way a WP article does. Pincrete (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - holds no claim of notability. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Holds no claim for notability and this article could be a major offence for the victim's family. SocialTechWorker (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Author, OK with Merge - I am the author of the article, and would support merging the content into the sexual violence article, I just want to note that she was also a victim of the attacks - simply of the attacks, regardless of her sister's doubting whether there was sexual violence, is there any article where that aspect can be added?Keizers (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are various articles where deaths during the Oct attack are recorded, most deal mainly with statistics (% male/female, % age group, % civilian etc) rather than individuals, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel is the 'overall' article. Pincrete (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: and rename to Murder of Gal Abdush per WP:VICTIM This is consistent with other AfD outcomes with notable murders during a larger event. The event is notable, it passes GNG, LASTING, international coverage already in article (Jpost, NYT, The Hill), and more sources can be added. // Timothy :: talk 03:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont feel this is notable per WP:BIO1E. Regardless of international coverage it was being reported in the context of the larger event, not because the murder of this victim is notable. Cowlan (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect - to Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel. I don't see why a standalone page is necessary when there is not a particular claim for notability Cowlan (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or Redirect this doesn't seem like enough to warrant a standalone page about this person's death. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 Electronic cigarette. Consensus is that this article is a WP:CONTENTFORK of Electronic cigarette and that the latter article does a better job at describing the subject in an encyclopedic matter. ^Complex/_Rational 22:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vaping[edit]

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

This isn't a typical AfD. The subject article is quite old, it's extremely long and detailed, and it has 197 (one hundred and ninety-seven) inline citations to reliable sources. It's an article about a blatantly, obviously, hugely notable subject.

But the article also has huge problems that would be laborious to repair, and I propose to redirect it to Electronic cigarette. I could have done that without using the AfD process, but I'm choosing to use AfD, because this is a highly-developed article that's relatively underwatched, and I don't want to do an end-run around the community consensus processes.

I'm particularly concerned about this because in this case we're missing one of our key checks and balances against deletion-by-redirection. I think it would be unfair of me to discuss the redirection with its creator QuackGuru. He's topic-banned from everything related to medicine, broadly construed, since remedy #6 of this Arbcom case. He isn't allowed to participate in discussions like this so it would be quite unfair of me to tell him of this AfD. Note that this article wasn't created in violation of his topic ban -- QuackGuru started it in June 2019 and he wasn't topic banned for nearly a year afterwards.

The problems with this article are as follows:

(1) WP:SYNTH, and arguably, borderline WP:POVFORK. Prior to his topic ban, QuackGuru's method for building medical articles was to search for sources that scrupulously meet WP:RS, then scour them for a phrase or sentence that supported his view of the subject, and then copy/paste that phrase or sentence, citing it very carefully and precisely. The practical effect of this has been to create an article that's more hostile to electronic cigarette usage than the sources warrant.

(2) It's redundant and out of date. We have a more balanced article at electronic cigarette which is maintained, which more accurately reflects the worldwide scientific consensus, and which already contains all the encyclopaedic information from vaping.

(3) WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. This article is easily understood by an accomplished reader, but it's not accessible to a substantial part of our target audience. It would need to be fully re-written in plain, clear English, in which each paragraph introduces, explains, and summarizes what the reliable sources say about one thing. And if we did that, it would look so much like the content we already have at Electronic cigarette#Use that it's a pointless exercise.

So I do hope that the community will authorise me to redirect this content.—S Marshall T/C 12:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 12:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm pondering whether it should qualify for its own article or have it be redirected. I'm currently leaning towards it being redirected. I don't there is anything that should be covered by the Vaping article that the Electronic cigarette article shouldn't cover, but I am open to changing my mind. Interstellarity (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect It's a shame that all the hard work has gone into this vaping article, but I'm inclined to agree with the nomination to BLAR. Regarding content that could be salvaged, I think File:Various types of e-cigarettes.jpg has more encyclopedic value than File:All e-cigarettes vs. Juul.jpg, but I suppose that is a discussion to be made on that page. For the prose, I can see a full attempt at merging as a total nightmare with not much benefit, since the redirect target is already well written and perhaps WP:TOOBIG at 11617 words.

Earwig broke when trying to run it on this article... interesting. Another remark, the e-cigarettes article says vaping 120 times compared to this articles' 84. Obviously not a good idea to use WP:A10 here but that is what it seems to me in essence- vaping is the act of using an e-cigarette, and both articles have a "use" section. It does seem a bit like a POVFORK. Darcyisverycute (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say that File:Various types of e-cigarettes.jpg is very much like File:CDC_electronic_cigarettes_October_2015_(cropped).png, which the target article already uses.—S Marshall T/C 10:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: One is an article about the "thing", other is about "using the thing", but there does seem to be some overlap. I'd expect the vaping article to be more about the social aspects of the use of e-cigarettes, rather than about the physical object. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect as suggested seems ok, largely duplicates the e-cig article. Oaktree b (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect as a duplication of electronic cigarette; subjects such as this (and e.g. telephone v.s. telephoning) where the object is only notable in its use should not have separate articles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect per above, although I do not support a permanent prohibition on any article covering this topic to exist. Parenthetically, I will note that both this article and the redirect target seem to devote a lot of time to explaining "motivations" and "causes" et cetera, seemingly unaware that sometimes adults do things because they enjoy them. Smoking is one of a few leisure activities where most of the people who write about it in academic sources dislike it and hate the people who do it (wouldn't it be jarring if rock climbing listed ten motivations, including lack of moral constitution etc, and then made a brief aside to say that some people enjoyed it before immediately returning to a long explanation of how the equipment was expensive?) jp×g 🗯️ 08:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 Dubai Press Club. Star Mississippi 23:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arab Media Forum[edit]

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

There is very little to indicate that this is a notable subject. There is not much coverage by independent, reliable sources of this UAE state initiative. The coverage is all by involved outlets and by state-owned media. If there is anything worth keeping, it can be merged with Mass media in the United Arab Emirates. Thenightaway (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and United Arab Emirates. Owen× ☎ 14:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Dubai Press Club as ATD. Mccapra (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mega Man Retro Roto Action Figures[edit]

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

Couldn't find any sources besides fansites or blogs. Someone has attempted to speedy delete it before, so to my knowledge, it's ineligible for PROD. QuietCicada - Talk 16:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Toys. QuietCicada - Talk 16:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Plainly fails notability for a WP:PRODUCT. No reliable sources. Haven't done a WP:BEFORE but if the article can only point to WP:USERG like fans and collectors, it's not really within the scope of an independent article. Not sure you'd merge this to Mega Man beyond maybe a sentence in the In Other Media section.ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 16:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Manu (Theosophy)[edit]

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

No reliable sources added to the article in over a decade. Only unreliable Theosophical writers like Elizabeth Clare Prophet are cited. No academic historians have specifically covered this topic, it is not possible to have a neutral article. The only sources that cover the topic are fringe related Theosophical sources that fail WP:RS. The topic is non-notable and no independent coverage exists. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete As per the nominator, only primary sources exist. There is no reliable independent sources that cover this concept. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PhD theses are neither automatically unreliable nor automatically reliable. WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Jfire (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 23:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Serapis Bey[edit]

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

A bad fringe article that has been on Wikipedia since 2006 entirely poor sourced. The only sources mentioned on the article are Theosophist writers, Alice Bailey, Elizabeth Clare Prophet and Charles Leadbeater etc, these all fail WP:Fringe and WP:RS and are not independent neutral sources. Academic historians have not specifically covered Serapis Bey. It is impossible to have a decent article with good academic sources because none exist on this topic from independent reliable secondary sources. It is a non-notable subject that should be deleted per lack of academic historical coverage. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete An in universe character who isn't covered by reliable independent sources. They are only mentioned in-universe, and thus are unlikely to be notable for a standalone article Big Money Threepwood (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment The first two links you cite are a PhD Doctorate, this isn't a reliable source. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 14:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wilfredo Genes[edit]

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

From what I can tell, Genes had a very brief career in Indonesia. I couldn't find evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC #5 but did do extensive searches. Ayo Bandung and Bulao were just squad listings. Kompas, Okezone and Tribun Kaltim only mention Genes once in passing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Paraguay. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 14:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gugum Gumilar[edit]

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

No apparent passing of WP:SPORTBASIC #5. The best that I could find were Tribun News, an image caption, and Bola, which is mostly just a quote from the subject. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, his career beyond the single game covered by Soccerway might actually fail WP:V. Geschichte (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conjugal love[edit]

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

Dictionary definition tag; possible Original Research and synthesis of information. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It's undersourced, but it's been around 12+ years and clearly more than a dictdef. But this makes me wonder if there's another article on the same topic somewhere that this should be combined into. Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jclemens: The closest I can think of is Romantic love. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, but that's a very distinct concept. Conjugal == of or relating to marriage; romantic love is pretty orthogonal. We don't have spousal love either. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh yeah, that makes sense. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep imo, although it clearly badly needs improvement. Google scholar is giving me a plethora of articles discussing this as a philosophical topic. — Moriwen (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep -- Not unsourced. Yes it is brief, but it is more than a dictionary definition. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 14:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zé Miguel[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that Zé Miguel has ever been discussed at great length in his career. The best that I can find is Record, which is not enough on its own. He doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 16:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WKBJ-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Article was part of a bundled AfD last year that closed as no consensus, but there is no apparent notability for this station individually. Let'srun (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Florida. Let'srun (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Another run-of-the-mill ground-up 2009-window DTV America/HC2/Innovate station airing national networks with no local content nor any significant coverage. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. per above. Nate • (chatter) 21:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 14:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rufat Abbasov[edit]

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

Stats stub on a footballer with only 160 mins of professional league football to date. My search of Azerbaijani sources didn't yield any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. At first glance, Sportline looks decent but it's, in fact, almost 100% quote content so doesn't actually contain any independent analysis of Abbasov. Baku Plus was just two passing mentions in a match summary on a reserve fixture. If he becomes notable later, this can always be recreated but we shouldn't be writing articles on footballers that haven't reached that level yet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Source in article is a database record, as noted above the interview fails WP:IS, BEFORE found name mentions/listings, but nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 02:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 14:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hotel Burgas Beach[edit]

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

Same sort of case as Grand Hotel Sunny Beach (AfD) and has been tagged for notability since 2017. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, WP:NCORP or WP:NBUILD. Not every 4 star hotel is automatically notable (in fact, this source says that it's only a 3 star). I can't find any evidence of historical, architectural or cultural significance to warrant an entire article of its own here. It is listed in all of the usual hotel booking websites but I can't find any independent journalism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 13:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BTU International[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. PepperBeast (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Massachusetts. PepperBeast (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete aside from winning some non notable awards I don’t see anything other than ROTM coverage. There may be material in US newspapers that I can’t access in which case I’ll reconsider. Mccapra (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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. The cleanup work by Cielquiparle shows there are more articles to disambiguate here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christian, Crown Prince of Denmark (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page as WP:ONEOTHER. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom, unless another historical crown prince of Denmark named Christian is identified. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Disambiguations, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as unnecessary. --Killuminator (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete' Completely unnecessary. scope_creep^Talk 16:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete the for link for Christian, Prince-Elect of Denmark on the younger's page is sufficent enough. EmilySarah99 (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep. I could maybe see the value of this page if it listed the other four Crown Prince Christians of Denmark at Category:Crown Princes of Denmark and List of heirs to the Danish throne, but at the moment the page doesn't make much sense with only two entries. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Who'd get those two people confused? GoodDay (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep but alter it. Under its current state it should be deleted based on WP:2DABS. However, as User:Celia Homeford pointed out, there were other crown princes of Denmark named Christian (similar to how there were several heirs in England named Edward, Prince of Wales). The redirect should be expanded and a similar one should be made for crown princes named Frederik. Keivan.f^Talk 14:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Changing previous !vote and will fix the DAB per discussion above. Thanks Celia Homeford. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 The Blood Divine. Should that subsequently be deleted, this redirect will be too. Star Mississippi 16:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awaken (The Blood Divine album)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUM, can't find any online sources that would support its inclusion. Anyone got any old issues of Kerrang! that might help? pinktoebeans ^(talk) 13:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United Kingdom. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 13:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to the Blood Divine: Couldn't find any coverage myself in online archives/searches (though I don't have any print copies of any relevant magazines so I can't speak to that option). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI I'm also struggling to find evidence The Blood Divine passes WP:GNG based off of online sources, and the few offline sources I've seen mention them only briefly or as a side mention alongside Cradle of Filth. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 19:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 13:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ashley Marinaccio[edit]

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

WP:SELFPUB sources used here. Many claims are unreferenced. Nothing shows up in Google News. Also, slightly WP:PROMO. TLA (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Theatre, Photography, and New York. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 13:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 Human rights in Azerbaijan. ✗plicit 13:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commissioner for Human Rights of the Republic of Azerbaijan[edit]

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

There is nothing that indicates that this is a notable entity. There is no independent reliable sources of the body, and there is nothing that suggests that this is a meaningful entity in Azerbaijani politics or that it actually does anything on human rights matters. Thenightaway (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Human rights in Azerbaijan: no independent notability for this government body. Owen× ☎ 21:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLA (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NORG, sources fails WP:IS. BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS. Azerbaijan government sources are not independent reliable sources for the subject. No objection to a consensus redirect to Human rights in Azerbaijan. // Timothy :: talk 05:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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. Draftification can be requested at WP:REFUND. ✗plicit 11:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mini Europa[edit]

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

Non-notable figure skating competition only for novice & junior skaters featuring a sea of red links. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or drafify. No references, no pl wiki interwiki. Sadly, the author is inactive since 2019 so I doubt anyone would try to save it after drafticiation. Merge is hard due to no sourcing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLA (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draftify – Per Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. Svartner (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - Since the author is AWOL, a !vote to draftify is going to have the same result as WP:SOFTDELETE. Adequate justification is needed for deletion direct or indirect via draft space. I don't see any indication that anyone (self included) has done any WP:BEFORE work. I don't see any strong arguments for deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Again, this is a non-notable figure skating competition, no longer held, that was exclusive to junior and novice-level skaters only (ie. no seniors). The sea of red links shows that the skaters who did medal here were themselves not notable. The men's competition also frequently featured only one competitor. This was a Who cares? competition, and the article should be taken out back and given the Tonya Harding treatment. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 11:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Astral Rejection[edit]

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

Very few reliable sources and of dubious notability. DarklitShadow (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. DarklitShadow (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: Has reviews from AllMusic, Alternative Press, and SLUG. Those three should be plenty enough. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per the provided reviews. I chucked out a badly sourced section. Some of the article in its current state is still questionable. Geschichte (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLA (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per sources provided above. A Newspapers.com search shows up a few more sources as well. I think it's safe to call this a GNG pass now. Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 10:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment and @User:Geschichte: questionable is okay in light of documentation found, no reason to put an article through AfD but rather through the 'Edit' button. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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. There is no policy behind the keep !votes. Star Mississippi 16:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Labor Order (Azerbaijan)[edit]

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

An award created by the Azerbaijan government in 2016 (and per the article only given out until 2019). It's one of countless awards given out by the Azerbaijan government. Thenightaway (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Sounds unreasonable to me to delete the article just because because it's one of the awards established by the Azerbaijani government. The civil and military awards of the republic are, of course, established by them. It's one of the highest decorations in the country — Toghrul R (t) 12:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Subject fairly pass GNG. --Surə ^🗯 16:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see one to two more editors contribute.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLA (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. Just because an award is from a government does not make it automatically notable. An annoucement that an award has been awarded is obviously doesno't establish notability. Sources in the article and BEFORE fail WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if independent reliable sources with SIGCOV about the award are found. Keep votes provided no sources showing notability. // Timothy :: talk 06:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 current article and then move Ceratodus (genus) to Ceratodus. Daniel (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ceratodus[edit]

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

Needless disambiguation page, as there are only two topics. The extinct lungfish genus seems to be the primary topic (the Queensland settlement is a small hamlet), going by pageview counts prior to the move, so it should be the primary title per WP:DAB: A disambiguation page with only two meanings is not necessary if one of them is the primary topic for that term. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the reclassification of things that older works say to be Ceratodus but are not named such now, Neoceratodus is a plausible third place to direct readers to, making this not a two-topic disambiguation. Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Don't believe there is a primary topic here and the page is useful for helping readers navigate to the page they are looking for. // Timothy :: talk 07:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- This is demonstrably not true. The extinct lungfish is the primary topic by at least a factor of 5 [17]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: following Uncle G's lead, I added Neoceratodus as a third target, tipping the scales into useful-DAB territory. Owen× ☎ 13:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organisms and Australia. Owen× ☎ 13:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Nom has it right; the genus has a strong claim as the primary topic, and for readers there is no reason for (nor any benefit in) landing at Ceratodus (genus) when searching for Neoceratodus, as we have articles for both genera and they are multiply linked by hatnote and in text. Two topics, best resolved by hatnote. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- It's the other way around. People searching for things that used to be named Ceratodus need some way of knowing that Neoceratodus is where they now need to go. Uncle G (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, turned it round. The point remains - we don't want to vector people looking for Ceratodus to Neoceratodus because the original genus name still remains. There is a (counts) 22/28 chance that they do not actually want to go to Neoceratodus. The correct place for the reader to figure that out is at the genus article, not at a disambiguation junction. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move as suggested below seems suitable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete and Move Ceratodus (genus) to Ceratodus, adjusting hatnotes. The town (population 28) seems to have pageviews about a tenth those of the genus - see here, complicated by the fact that the genus was at the base name until late December when it was moved. So my !vote is really Revert December 2023 pagemove because the genus is the primary topic. PamD 10:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move Ceratodus (genus) to Ceratodus, precisely per User:PamD, and per WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. A hatnote is a wonderful thing. BD2412 T 21:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like Move is stronger here, but there is some consensus for keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLA (talk) 11:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move – The genus has been demonstrated to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Svartner (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and Move Ceratodus (genus) to Ceratodus per PamD. This isn't so much a deletion discussion, more a discussion about reverting a previous move. TarnishedPath^talk 11:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 11:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nodance Film Festival[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG – no references. Passing mentions found online. TLA (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and Utah. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 11:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indian Film Festival Japan[edit]

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

No references here, no references online. Fails WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, Japan, and India. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. No significant notability and no sources. Article has no net-benefical contribution.RangersRus (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 11:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doorpost Film Project[edit]

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

Sources are press releases, not WP:INDEPENDENT. Nothing I could find online, thus failing WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Events. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 11:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shocker Fest International Film Festival[edit]

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

There are a large number of reliable + independent sources online, but are clearly not WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and California. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 11:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Portable Film Festival[edit]

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

No references that help meet WP:GNG. Only reference doesn't work now, and others I could find are WP:SELFPUB. TLA (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and Australia. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Clearly fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Carried out my own search, and fails WP:GNG, with no significant coverage able to be found. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete No appropriate sources used and no more notable coverage to be found. Thebookstamper (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 11:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's All Be Free Film Festival[edit]

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

Only reference here are WP:SELFPUB and a press release, I believe. Can't find anything online, thus does not meet WP:GNG in my books. TLA (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and England. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 11:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 11:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

London Film Awards[edit]

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

Only references here are WP:SELFPUB and press releases. Can't find anything online. Be careful not to mistake this for the more general phrase "London film awards" TLA (talk) 10:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and England. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 11:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zero Film Festival[edit]

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

Only reference here is WP:SELFPUB. Tons of unsourced statements, likely a WP:COI. Can't find anything online, thus does not meet WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Events. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England, Canada, California, Florida, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Article is completely unsourced and somewhat advertorialized, and says nothing that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to pass WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 11:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Angel Film Festival[edit]

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

Only reference here is WP:SELFPUB. Can't find anything online, thus does not meet WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and England. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 11:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Proximus TV channels[edit]

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

The content is not (and has never been) a list of Proximus TV channels. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Belgium. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: At most, this was only ever a list of Proximus TV's official channel lists, links to which were eventually removed for being dead links. (Someone tried to have this speedied in 2017 because of that, but it was declined as that is not a CSD criterion; it does seem to indicate that an AfD was long overdue here.) Hard to imagine that any version of this complied with Wikipedia not being a directory. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 11:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Davina Reichman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Solely passing mentions + nothing comes up in Google News. Refspam is also evident TLA (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Fashion, and Australia. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I’m leaning towards deleting based on reading the two previous nominations. I find the lack of linking in the reflist telling. Notability not demonstrated, CoI issues…if the topic is notable it can be recreated RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Notability is not inherited and can someone explain why two of the sentences have 11 citations? TarnishedPath^talk 00:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Sources are not indepth of her. and nothing in gnews, fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 11:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VFX Festival[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG; no sources. TLA (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Computing, and England. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 11:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

London International Student Film Festival[edit]

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

Sources are WP:SELFPUB. Can't find anything that suffices WP:GNG online, either. TLA (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and England. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 11:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

London Film Week[edit]

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

Only current source is its own website. Can't seem to find much online either. Fails WP:GNG from what I see. TLA (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete It has no sources and I also can't find any other reliable sources online, only mentions on unsuitable websites.Thebookstamper (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and England. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 11:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cortoons Gandia[edit]

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

No sources at all that I could find; does not meet WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and Spain. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 11:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Success On The Spectrum[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Source 1 doesn't go in-depth at all. Source 2 seems promotional. Source 3 and 6 is a mere mention. Source 4 is marginally fine, seems routine though. Source 5 is a press release. TLA (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: The original creator of the article, Binawood, is blocked for sockpuppeting. A G5 case? Someone please verify. TLA (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and Texas. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. 08:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 11:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tommy Brown (record producer)[edit]

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

Some sources are reliable + independent, sure, but only passing mentions of Tommy Brown. Nothing that satisfies WP:GNG in my books. TLA (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pennsylvania. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 11:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DJ Manzee[edit]

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

Half of the sources are marked as sponsored, and others are clearly not WP:INDEPENDENT, thus failing WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Maharashtra. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 11:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eren-Verdi Asrin[edit]

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

Aside from the WP:UPE, the reliable sources are mere passing mentions. TLA (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, and Canada. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Raffetto, California[edit]

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

Procedural nomination per WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 7#Raffetto, California. This article created in 2009 about an unincorporated community was turned to a redirect in 2020 with the reasoning this locale is not a community and never has been. The RfD decided that this was not a plausible redirect. Jay 💬 09:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jay 💬 09:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only "Raffetto" that I can find was a placer mine near to Placerville, California, granted a licence in 1896 and in that year's State Mineralogist report as well as a few subsequent USACE listings up until 1900. The owner was one Giovanni Raffetto, whom I cannot verifiably identify with John Augustus Raffetto. It it possible as Giovanni Raffetto's mine was using Weber Creek, which runs south of Placerville, for dumping waste according to the various newspapers that it was reported in. However, it was John's father Dominico who was the miner. John was a hotelier. On the gripping hand, this is approximately 30km distant from and a different river to, the article's location and clearly not this place. This Raffetto disappears when the dam appears. There's nothing in the El Dorado history books, which have J. A. Raffetto in depth (from which I got the aforementioned), about a Raffetto on Silver Creek. This is unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
delete Aerials are no help but topos show a single building at the end of a road. I cannot get at either Durham or Gudde at the moment but given the misrepresentations of the former we have come across, one cannot presume that either of them says it was a town. There's just no evidence here beyond a location. Mangoe (talk) 13:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Local newspapers have nothing, there is no cemetery recorded in that area. There is an old foundation nearby. The usual indicators of people living there are absent. There is definitely no significant coverage. I believe something was there along time ago, probably gold rush related. But, as of 1901 when newspaper coverage starts it doesn't exist.James.folsom (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Just remove links to the redirects or something, don't waste people's time with RFDs and AFDs on what's obviously not notable – what now has the outright lie that this "is an unincorporated community". Reywas92^Talk 15:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 12:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May al-Ibrashy[edit]

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

BLP of an Egyptian architect lacking coverage in reliable independent sources. I think it is significant that I could not find any sources at all in Arabic. Mccapra (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - I think al-Ibrashy is notable on a number of levels, and that this can be demonstrated through appropriate sourcing. I’ve added around 9 cites, with some limited text expansion, and done some tidying. Google Books is also showing a number of sources that could be used if other editors had access to them. KJP1 (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Architecture, and Egypt. Mccapra (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for adding these. I’m still not seeing sustained in depth coverage in independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That’s fine. We just disagree. She’s a woman architect, in an Arab society, undertaking work which has gained international recognition. Let’s see what others think. KJP1 (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Podcasts aren't what we're looking for with sourcing; appears to be a working architect, nothing found that we can use for RS. Oaktree b (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oaktree b - I apologise in advance if this comes across as badgering, but I think there's one podcast in the sourcing, in addition to Worldcat/SOAS/Architectural League of New York/France 24/The American University in Cairo/Honolulu Star-Advertiser/Charlotte School of Architecture/Egyptian Streets etc. Plus a bunch of Google Books that show potential. We can certainly debate the extent of the coverage, as Mccapra has done, but to suggest that there is no RS really isn't accurate. All I ask is that we consider carefully the case for deletion. We know women are underrepresented on here, Arabic women in the professions certainly so. In al-Ibrashy we have a successful professional working in an important area of heritage conservation, with a body of work that has gained international recognition. Would there be any objection if I flagged this discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red? I don't want to canvass but I think it's a topic that may generate interest there, and perhaps some additional views/sourcing. As an example, I learnt from it that Egyptian Streets has an article on here. KJP1 (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 11:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by HTV[edit]

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

Fails NLIST, CLN and NOTTVGUIDE. A massive unsourced programming guide, very very few wls, no CLN value, no sources showing this meets NLIST. Nothing sourced to merge, no proper redirect target. // Timothy :: talk 08:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Vietnam. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doménica Ananías[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a field hockey player, to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this interview and a couple of sentences of coverage here. Everything else are trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Chile. JTtheOG (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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. If someone wants to work on it in draft space, just let me know. Star Mississippi 15:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kim Young-geun[edit]

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

No indication of individual notability, not fleshed out and unlikely to be in near future. Also this user (User:Kisuga) has created [18] over 200 of these kinds of articles. I don't know how to handle this; can someone give a recommendation? Is it possible to speedy delete many of them? toobigtokale (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. toobigtokale (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. No, it is not possible to speedy delete them, especially since you nominate such a wide variety of articles for deletion. Some players have 10 games, some have 100, some have 200, some have international caps. This article falls into the 100 games + cap categories. Draftify is an option, but with input from people who speak or are knowledgeable in Korean. Geschichte (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I am on the fence, it's possible that GNG could be established, however I feel this might be a South Korean wiki article only. I am not sure how this fits into English wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dubai International Food Safety Conference[edit]

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

There is nothing that indicates that this conference is notable. It was started in 2006 and a likely COI account immediately created a Wikipedia article for it. It appears purely promotional in nature. There is no substantive coverage by independent, reliable sources of this conference. Thenightaway (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Events, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete coverage confirms it existed but nothing to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The British Railway series[edit]

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

Unsourced since creation and I don’t see in depth coverage in third party sources to suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Mccapra (talk) 13:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the world has actually documented this at all, it is hiding behind so many false positives that I cannot find any of it. The article is zero help. No sources have ever been cited in 12 years. This is unverifiable. Uncle G (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and per above. We don't have enough to write an actual article on the subject. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This article does not appear to meet any of the notability guidelines, the only independent coverage of the topic I have found is a WordPress blog entry (https://locoyard.com/2014/03/06/world-book-day-special-tale-of-the-unnamed-engine/), and the article has been orphaned since March 2014. SmileySnail (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WBII-CD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Mississippi. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WBXP-LP[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

J. C. Greenburg[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Cannot find any independent sources. The GreenwichTime article is a user-submitted listing of events and is not independent. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Lost. Johnj1995 (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Science, United States of America, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect I don't see enough independant coverage to warrant an article, but as an WP:ATD could redirect to her more notable husband at Dan Greenburg. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more opinions. While it might come to this closure, I am adverse to the frequent "Redirect woman's article to that of her husband" resolutions that often appear at AFD. If that is the consensus, so be it but one opinion is not consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Agreed with relister about redirecting to husband idea. At minimum, it should be a merge. Also, she did win an Eleanor Cameron Award. Robina Fox (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the award sufficient?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Golden Duck Award#Eleanor Cameron Award. Not a "well-known and significant award" (WP:ANYBIO) or "major literary award" (WP:BKCRIT) to establish notability for a stand-alone article, but this target has a little info about the author. (And I don't know where this article would be merged to.) SilverLocust 💬 22:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: I can only find the Greenwich articles as mentioned, nothing else. The award might be notable, but with no sourcing, we can't have an article. Could perhaps redirect to the list of Golden Duck winners? Oaktree b (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep per Robina Fox. I think that the award is notable. The article neede more sources but I don't think deletion is a good idea. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I lean towards Redirect/Merge as an alternative to a No consensus closure but there isn't an agreed upon target article. But I don't think Redirecting a biography article to an award article is the best option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I agree it's not ideal, but absence of anything other than the award, I stand by my original suggestion of Dan Greenburg being the target for a redirect/merge. -Kj cheetham (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. When there's not a suitable redirect target, then we don't need to have one at all. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Leaning keep based on reviews and a scholarly source added, and some further coverage on ProQuest, as well as the award (recognized by Booklist) helping generally support notability as an author for the Andrew Lost series of books. If the full version of ""Andrew Lost in the Garden" By J.C. Greenburg", Advocate; Baton Rouge, La. 24 May 2003: 8-D. (Abstract only available on ProQuest 415677651), can be found, this may help further bolster author notability. If there will be a redirect, I think the Golden Duck Award#Eleanor Cameron Award is preferable, because the subject and her work are mentioned, and it seems generally preferable to target the redirect to her career accomplishments than to her spouse. Beccaynr (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 06:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paul Sizer[edit]

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

Unfortunately unable to locate any additional sources that may contribute to GNG and article does not currently contain any. I don't think the subject is notable. Justi yaya 06:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Comics and animation, and Michigan. Justi yaya 06:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 06:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barpathar High School[edit]

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

I don’t see any sources in English to suggest that this school is notable. There may be sources in Assamese or other languages. Mccapra (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Assam. Mccapra (talk) 06:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete or redirect. In the absence of sources conferring notability I would normally support a redirect to the locality the school serves — presumably in this case the Nilabari area of Bongaigaon — but there's no article. Could feasibly add its name to the list of schools in Bongaigaon#education and redirect there, otherwise delete. Rupples (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Notability of schools, particularly in areas where sources may not be in English, can be a vexing issue. Sources don't have to be in English to demonstrate notability, and they don't even have to be online. But at this stage there is not a single source in this article, which doesn't even properly describe where this school is. Searches do find some primary sources, showing it exists, but we don't have an article and we don't have sifficient material to write an article. The state of this one, 10 years on from its creation, is so poor that WP:TNT applies. If someone wants to write about this school in the future, having found some secondary sources showing notability, they won't need to begin from here. As it stands, no evidence that it passes GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Social Development Fund of IDP of the Republic of Azerbaijan[edit]

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

Nothing indicates that this organization is notable. There is no reliable sourcing. The article appears intended to promote the Azerbaijan government. Thenightaway (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: Sources are not reliable.AasifShrestha (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 and clean up, the latter as noted by virtually all participants Star Mississippi 15:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of theatres in Bangkok[edit]

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

Delete Does not pass WP:STAND, unsourced also for 16 years. Does not seem like a necessary list to have as a standalone article. Tooncool64 (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Theatre, Lists, and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. If you click on the bluelinked items in this list, most of them appear not even to be theatres. Certainly the redlinked items cannot be listed without sources, and the bluelinked ones could only be listed if there is a source that states that they are, or even were, working theatres. Nothing encyclopedic would be lost by deleting this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Needs clean-up, not deletion. Per WP:LISTN, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Theatres in Bangkok, as a group, have been discussed by scholarly sources such as this SPAFA Journal article, this Chulalongkorn University PhD thesis, and this Thammasat University master's thesis. While the grouping of theatres is discussed within the context of a wider topic, the discussion is in-depth enough to warrant a list dedicated to the subtopic, given that no Theatre of Thailand article currently exists to which the content could alternatively be merged. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Per Paul. It could easily be converted into a sourced table list with information. Theatres are an encyclopedia topic, but perhaps it should be moved to List of performing arts venues in Bangkok as Ssilvers has a valid point. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep A typical list for a big city. Per Wikipedia:LISTN, sources have to have discussed the grouping or set in general ("theatres in Bangkok"), but the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. This version of the article could certainly use more sourcing, but the sources are surely there. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Sources found covering this. A table format like other articles of this type Category:Lists of theatres by city would be allow more information to be shown. Dream Focus 17:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can talk about creating List of theatres in Thailand instead. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or rename this article and add to it. Dream Focus 16:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: Needs clean-up, not deletion.AasifShrestha (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per improvements by Paul 012. Toughpigs (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Fund of Aid for Youth[edit]

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

There is nothing to indicate that the subject is notable. There is no sourcing in the article that is independent of the Azerbaijan government. The page appears intended to promote the Azerbaijan government. Thenightaway (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shakir Hasanov[edit]

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

Run of the mill Azerbaijani bureaucrat. Thenightaway (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Engineering, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Birra Peja[edit]

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

Notability has not been established for the company Moem-Meom (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete – I doubt its notability. Nothing in Google News and sources seem to be WP:SELFPUB. This also needs WP:TNT as it seems to be a mix of a geographic article and a beer company article… TLA (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nick Berk[edit]

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

No notable wrestler. Worked on independent level. sources only make passing mentions about him WP:ROUTINE results. No in-deep coverage about him. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Pennsylvania. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 Bob Utley. Daniel (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bible Lessons International[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE fails WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 08:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete – Firstly, a lot of unsourced claims. Sources seem to be WP:SELFPUB, consisting of a random blob of archived text and library catalogs. TLA (talk) 07:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Bob Utley (with the history preserved under the redirect), the founder of Bible Lessons International, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Cunard (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 due to lack of participation. Any editor is free to re-nominate immediately, or alternatively can consider boldly redirecting. Daniel (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alphacaine[edit]

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

It is a trade name for a drug, and trade names need separate notability to have their own articles. [19] and [20] state it is 20% benzocaine. Cannot find any newsworthy coverage about the brand name itself. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Medicine. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment There was a contested WP:PROD on 2019, but I cannot find google scholar sources to establish WP:GNG, hence my nomination. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Benzocaine if a source can be found, otherwise delete. jp×g 🗯️ 20:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 due to lack of participation after three relists. Daniel (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G. V. Vennela[edit]

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

Fails ONEEVENT and NPOL. Contested election but didn't won. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 09:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 09:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contest deletion

Hi LordVoldemort728,

Thanks for reviewing the article and letting me know. I feel that the subject passed notability due to her legendary father and is not just a onevent of contesting election. She has been in the news for a long time due to the visit of Rahul Gandhi to meet her and the finally the MLA seat. There is all india coverage and more than two articles in mainstream newspapers have written about her and not just passing references due to her election candidature. I would like to improve it and add more citations. Or else I would like it to be in drafts - so that I can do the AfC. Thanks and regards, Davidindia (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Davidindia Being child of a famous person doesn't mean that he or she is notable. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 07:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Got it. Trying to source citations of her own achievements. Thanks Davidindia (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have added information and a few more reliable citations from Newspapers. Request editors to review the article once again. thanks Davidindia (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, there have been lots of changes to the article since nomination that should be reviewed. Also, editor is asking for this to be Draftified, is there any more support for this option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I think enough citations were added with new content. Now instead of making it a draft, this article deserves to be kept. thanks Davidindia (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Davidindia (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Have added info and a few more citations. Realised that the subject BLP is popular due to the work she does at the school (mostly for poor) and not just because of her father. She is also a Dalit leader and has good coverage in Telugu papers, some of which I managed to cite. In 2023 Assembly elections, her candidature made the constituency one of the hot seats among the 119 constituencies according to many articles. Since many changes are made I request editors to review once again before a decision is taken. Thanks. Davidindia (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interdisciplinary Contest in Modeling[edit]

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

I think this mathematics competition is likely not notable. The hits on both google search and google news are either passing mentions or not-independent-enough sources. Duckmather (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Mathematics. Duckmather (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hiltz Squared Media Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP due to a lack of significant coverage from independent sources. Let'srun (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Companies, and Canada. Let'srun (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – Little to zero references, not fulfilling WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Not properly referenced as passing either WP:CORP criteria or WP:GNG, but simply existing is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a company from having to pass CORP or GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: a search showed up only passing mentions, not fulfilling CORPDEPTH. Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 16:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WWCG-LP[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No WP:SIGCOV found for this station to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). Let'srun (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Absolutely no SIGCOV. The "licensed" rationale that carried the day in 2008 is no longer valid, and it never materialized into really anything other than a record in some FCC files. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:55, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: it seems safe to say that if any significant coverage existed, it would have turned up by now. I did want to note that this station changed its call sign in 2009 to WCGT-LP; there was an expired PROD at that title in 2011. (That was shortly after the end of a three-year period in which this article had been blanked and redirected to White Springs Television.) If the article there was effectively about the same subject, would PROD even have been valid because this was after the 2008 AfD (and oy, you can really tell it was a pre-2021 deletion discussion on a broadcast station, with the lower standards that would not be considered "policy-based" now)? (And would any refund really be worth it just to go through the motions of another deletion discussion?) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

T. Surendra Reddy[edit]

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

Fails WP:Bio. No sources found of interest in WP:Before. Article is entirely original research.

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.

DareshMohan (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Andhra Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Unsourced. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: per above 456legend talk 11:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: per nom.27.4.112.164 (talk) 07:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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) Let'srun (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Autant en emporte le vent[edit]

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

Article is completely unreferenced. Unclear that the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

French Wiki has 19 citations. They look reliable enough, at a glance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. References from the corresponding article from French demonstrate notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
keep - this article on using GWTW in the classroom says "A successful 2003 French musical spectacular by Gérard Presgurvic, Autant en Emporte le Vent, also gave the black characters greater voice, in song and dance, as they expressed their desire for freedom." jengod (talk) 04:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Emirates Cup. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2019 Emirates Cup[edit]

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

This entry into this tournament is only a pair of friendlies. I'm not sure this isn't just WP:ROUTINE coverage. It's currently at GA, so wanted a consensus on its status. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Delete~~: Per GAR discussion. Idiosincrático (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Emirates Cup: per below. Idiosincrático (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete a very small amount of WP:ROUTINE coverage surrounded by lots of tangents. And I say this as a die-hard Gooner. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge/redirect to 2019–20 Arsenal F.C. season, where it is already mentioned, but any merge should see the content trimmed down hugely, as it's all trivial/fluff. I note there are articles on other editions of the same tournament that need a look, see ((Emirates Cup)). Giant Snowman 11:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment @GiantSnowman: I thought it would have been better to redirect straight to Emirates Cup, :/ Govvy (talk) 09:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even better! Giant Snowman 18:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge any pertinent information then Redirect to Emirates Cup. The preseason "tournament" might itself be notable, but I do not see how individual editions consisting of one women's match and one men's match meet GNG. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support for a Merge. And there are two different Merge/Redirect target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment It's worth noting that the 2022 edition also redirects to Emirates Cup. Idiosincrático (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Emirates Cup, which is consistent with the 2022 edition, which also redirects there. No need for separate article, as coverage is WP:ROUTINE. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to KZCO-LD. By the way, I have no idea what you mean by "Soft keep". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KLPD-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Colorado. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Soft Keep Definitely a sub-par article, but has the 2 sources there, just scrapes by notability in my opinion. Geardona (talk to me?) 18:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The sources are databases including one that is auto-generated by the infobox. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect or merge to KZCO-LD Odd case, but this LPTV probably isn't notable. However, it shares a channel with one that probably is. Full info on its subchannels and mux should be contained in KLPD-LD, which is actually the host. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect and merge to KZCO-LD: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG on its own. Merging and redirecting pertinent info into the parent article makes the most sense as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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. The nomination was withdrawn. Thanks to Jfire for quick action and referencing. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC) Firsfron of Ronchester 00:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meloland, California[edit]

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

Non-notable location. My PROD was declined because the University of California has an agriculture lab there (reference 3 in the article), but that page only uses the word Meloland once, as the original name of the facility (never referring to it as a "community"). Otherwise the sources cited are GNIS and Durham's, which are not sufficient for notability. Satellite view shows the UC facility surrounded by farmland, nothing approaching a community. Most likely this was a flag stop on the interurban railroad; nothing else could be found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. Chapter 53, "What I Wish I Knew About Meloland (1907–1998)" from William T. Vollmann's Imperial is dedicated to it, although in style and tone it does more to emphasize the settlement's insubstantiality and lack of fulfillment, rather than its historical importance.
Now for the stunning alteration of Meloland into a metropolis: In 1910 the population was ten. By 1920 it had doubled; in 1930 it had achieved perfect stability (which means that it remained the same as in 1920); in 1940 it was only five persons less (several of them being schoolchildren brown, yellow, white and freckled); in 1950 it stayed proudly unaltered... Geologists have named a Meloland soil, not to mention an Imperial, a Superstition, a Holtville and a Gila. The County Recorder once believed in the existence of a Meloland Orange Tract, on which a breach of obligation of a certain Deed of Trust took place in 1924; another pioneer or speculator had defaulted on his mortgage. Lots eleven, twelve, twenty-three and twenty-four in Meloland, together with others on another page, would be sold in three months. So don't tell me that Meloland did not exist, no matter that if I buttonhole somebody in El Centro and ask him how to get there, he'll say he never heard of it. The canals and green fields of Meloland are jewel-like in the evening light. The hay bales like green bullion on the pool tables of alfalfa fields now turn golden-orange. They are highly improved.
Jfire (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is why we prefer better sources than that. It was an agricultural packing and shipping point. Another encyclopaedia says so. The same encyclopaedia says that it was named in 1910, what the name means, and who named it when he lived there; so it could not have had a Meloland post office in 1908.
By the 1990s, it was the HQ of a farm named MAGCO, whose owner still called it Meloland despite the mail by then going through Holtville.
And
The four principal soil series of the Valley are the Imperial, Meloland, Holtville, and Rositas.
— Thomas, Edward E. (1936). Reclamation of White-alkali Soils in the Imperial Valley. Bulletin. Vol. 601. California Agricultural Experiment Station., p.4
… which the USDA gives details of.
There appear to be more sources cited at https://beyond.nvexpeditions.com/california/imperial/meloland.php .
The box is a suitably mellow colour.
Uncle G (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

references

"Meloland". Encyclopedia of California. Vol. 1. North American Book Dist. 1997. p. 329. ISBN 9780403098620.
Cross, Forrest D. (1991). "Ed McGrew: Putting his shadow on his land". Americans in Agriculture: Portraits of Diversity. United States Department of Agriculture. pp. 55–57.
Zimmerman, Robert P. (1975). Soil Survey of Imperial County, California, Imperial Valley Area. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service.

Keep. I've added expanded the article with the above sources and some additional ones. Meets WP:NPLACE. Jfire (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Looking good after the above expansion. I'm not even sure why it was nominated for deletion when the above-mentioned UC ag lab was already there. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. — Maile (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Withdrawing nomination: Article in much better shape now. Thank you all for adding sources and info that I was unable to find. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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 Adanaspor. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2019–20 Adanaspor season[edit]

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

Nothing valuable. A single section with a single primary source. Fails WP:GNG. Sakiv (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sakiv (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete – Unless if the article undergoes the necessary improvements. Svartner (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Adanaspor. Giant Snowman 12:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom, I don't see the need to redirect. Only the top league in Turkey should be allowed season articles. Govvy (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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.