< January 05	January 07 >

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RK Launcher[edit]

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

Little evidence of notability. Even though the release of the article is not up to date, the project has not been updated in 7 years according to GitHub. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor sourcing, doesn't meet WP:GNG. *:RomanRaju (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with this nomination.Charsaddian (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG *:Geardona (talk to me?) 18:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 23:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Silverine Lake Resort[edit]

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

Another hotel with no clear evidence of passing WP:GNG, WP:NBUILD or WP:NCORP. I did find Az Utazó but this is an interview with the hotel's owner and so clearly fails WP:ORGIND. I can't see any claim to architectural, historical or cultural significance here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and my own standards. There's just not enough substantive sources. More specifically, this does not rate, in my view, as a notable resort. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Millar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. A case of WP:BIO1E. Let'srun (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Utah. Let'srun (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First off, per the nomination, this person hasn't had the acting credits to rate notability under NACTOR. Secondly, I agree that there is a general lack of notability. I think the consensus is that only the win, place, and show of major contests/reality shows are notable. This person was 10th. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a case of WP:BIO1E as mentioned, and I can't find much justification for a redirect either, as the subject doesn't seem to have done anything notable within Miss America 2007 other than take part. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 21:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Traditional chiefs of Palau. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sakaziro Demk[edit]

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

I tried to prod this article 2 and half years ago but it didn't work, I thought the article was about a title and not a person which was why I removed the categories, but I now realise that I was wrong and the article is about a person. Today, I redirected the article to Traditional chiefs of Palau, but it wasn't mentioned there and so I googled the person and couldn't find anything. I then attempted to speedily delete the article as vandalism/hoax which was probably a bad idea. (thanks @Bbb23: for reverting). Anyway the point is this person fails the notability guidelines. Sahaib (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some coverage ([1][2][3]) but nothing particularly signfiicant online. Died in September 2011. The most I could find online was from the Marsh article, which states: Beouch Sakaziro Demk, 91, the first ranking chief of Ngardmau, passed away in September. He was of such distinguished merit that the National Congress honored him with a joint resolution attesting to his great community service, oratorical skills, and deep knowledge of traditions and culture. Seems to have been important, so this may be a case of Palauan sources not being available. Curbon7 (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another detail: per this article, the chiefs of Ngardmau form a House of Lords in the state legislature with the power to suspend any law, but I was not able to find a source which states whether or not Demk was a member of this body. Curbon7 (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Curbon7: thank you for proving that the person is real, but until enough sources can be found I believe it should be redirected to Traditional chiefs of Palau as I added the person to the table. Sahaib (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we could use some more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Sahaib. SilverLocust 💬 23:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herschel Sparber[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. None of his roles are significant enough. The Film Creator (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Role as Big Jule in Guys and Dolls was widely reviewed, including 1, 2, 3, biography in dictionary 4, profiled 5, and interviewed 6. Arguably meets WP:GNG if not WP:NACTOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaireeodell (talk • contribs) 01:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. These reviews do not say much about Sparber's acting, except that he was threatening. The refs say things like "Adding to the comic relief are minor characters such as Big Jule (Herschel Sparber), who lives up to his name as a no-nonsense gambler who towers over the small-time New York “Guys.”"2 Jule is a supporting character that is generally cast as a big, threatening guy. I didn't see any refs that give "substantial coverage" to Sparber's acting, and I am not convinced that any of his performances, or his roles in the aggregate, were encyclopedically significant. He certainly did not win a Tony or an Emmy and was not ever nominated for one, none of his TV roles were long-running, and none of his film roles seem significant. The appearance in a specialty voice actor encyclopedia is not persuasive, nor is an alumnus feature in his school paper. It would be more persuasive if his article were to explain the significance of any roles that are thought to be significant and if one could quote critics as saying that he was particularly effective in any of these smaller roles. The closest one, I'd say, is this. If we do keep this article, I would suggest adding in a lot of the information about him from this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The reviews linked above do not have significant coverage. The inclusion of his bio in a biographical dictionary of Disney voice actors because of his Disney role as "Security Guard" does not show notability. The alumnus profile is too self-interested in lauding school alumni. The five-question interview with the Maryland Theatre Guide proves too much in that their websites contains plenty of these interviews with plainly non-notable people involved with Maryland theatre. SilverLocust 💬 23:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Hotel Sunny Beach[edit]

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

Tagged for notability issues since 2017. I agree with the comment User:HeliosBirdBrain made on the talk page. Should this be here? it doesn't seem like it has any notable features or history beyond being a hotel. It previously had ads, so it looks like it was just added for the take of the hotel more than documenting something of note?

I can't see any evidence of WP:GNG, WP:NCORP or WP:NBUILD. This hotel does not seem to have any historical, cultural or architectural significance. Being the 3rd tallest building in Sunny Beach doesn't cut it for me. Searches in Bulgarian and English only yield the usual travel and tourism sites and UK tabloid mentions of there being good deals at the hotel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[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)} 22:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This, Kuban Resort and Aquapark, and Hotel Burgas Beach were each created in short succession for no other apparent reason that they are the three tallest buildings in said resort town -- and each "four-star hotels" -- so I don't see any reason to expect this one (or the others) would be notable. SilverLocust 💬 00:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable building, no significant coverage. The only sources in the article are a google maps link and one to emporis.com, which is just a listing for the tallest buildings in Sunny Beach, which is not in-depth enough.—*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 00:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fehufanga. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 11:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devoke water 23:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Discussion on a possible Merge can continue on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vette (Star Wars)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not sure if theres any SIGCOV here also for Vette like Atton. Despite being well written and time searching for possible sources at google search that mainly talks about the character; turns out only about torture and slavery. Kotaku [4] seems to be the only good source while others were about thr croticism of Daily Mail not about the character mainly. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series. Uses some outright unreliable sources, while most of the others are talking about the story of the game at large. The controversy bits have the same issue as the now-changed Controversies surrounding Mass Effect 3 article where the actual controversy is greatly overexaggerated to actually fill an article. It's a nothing burger as one might say, given the player isn't forced to do anything bad to her, you literally have to be roleplaying as an evil character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator's argument is unconvincing and seems to be about the exact title the article has. The referenced articles were clearly relevant and reliably sourced. I suppose this might be an argument to merge the article as a subsection of something like Depictions of slavery in Star Wars or "...in video gaming", but the fact that it could go to either place suggests that maybe it's fine on its own. (To be clear, I'd also be opposed to an awkward rename like ~~"Vette controversy"~~ (Edit: by which I mean "Criticism of Vette") or "Reception of Vette", but if it helps, think of the article as really on that topic with the character as background, and held together best by a title of simply the character.) SnowFire (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the only thing that makes her notable is a controversy, that is a problem as it would then qualify as a POV fork from the character article. Characters need to have more to their influence than just inciting a controversy over one trait of theirs. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what CSECTION means at all, nor is that what I meant above. Wikipedia covers notable disputes and controversies all the time. CSECTION is about not stuffing all the negative information on a topic into one section, and ideally not a spinoff article (BUT that's where there's already a parent article, which isn't what is being suggested). But we're off topic - I probably shouldn't have even said "controversy" for my hypothetical article title, but rather "criticism" in the sense of reliable sources discussing her, which is the base Wikipedia notability is made of.

Think about it from the reverse perspective: suppose some good, reliably sourced content exists. (Nom even admits article is "well written.") We shouldn't delete this content just because people can't agree what to title the article that contains that content. I think this content is held together just fine by an article called "Vette", but the nominator was worried that the Daily Mail didn't discuss other character-y parts about Vette enough. Fine, pretend it has a different title then is all I was saying. This happens all the time - we have some articles with the titles of video games that really comply with GNG and the default manual of style rather than the VG manual of style, because they are only borderline notable as games, but are notable for something else. This is the same deal - borderline notable as a character, more notable for something else, GNG is cleanly met (even if the "video game character" guidelines are shaky). SnowFire (talk) 05:34, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'm not particularly sold on Snowfire's argument or the article. I don't think the controversy as presented is enough to carry this subject on its own either, and may be a bit WP:UNDUE with how it's presented here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator created the AfD on the notion of a vaguewave, did no source analysis, and therefore has not established any actual rationale that the topic does not meet the standards of significant coverage. The potential for the shock collar to be used is an aspect of the character because she is portrayed as an actual slave, not unlike how some non player characters are accessible as a romantic option depending on how you choose to interact, which that could be a notable feature depending on how much third party coverage that aspect of the character attracts.

If the controversy, and by extension the character as explained by SnowFire, does not have any lasting significance, Religion Dispatches would not have done an entire case study after the shock value from the controversy died down, just to examine the likelihood of players to explore the potential of having a unsavoury or morally questionable interaction with this specific character. The study goes into great detail examining player agency. And not every source cited on the page is specifically about the controversy, or even specifically about The Daily Mail sensational piece (note that the Daily Mail is not even cited on the page). Some of these sources exist in direct response to the Daily Mail's piece, but plenty of their contents also specifically addressed the character directly and in detail. Again, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The article MassivelyOP, a reliable source which directly addresses the subject and in detail, does not even mention the slavery bit.

Lastly, the appropriate and relevant guidelines for consideration here are WP:SPINOFF and WP:NOTMERGE. The application of WP:UNDUE is not supposed to be about whether something should be spun out of a bigger topic as a standalone article, if that is what was implied. "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources" No significant viewpoints published by any reliable sources support The Daily Mail's allegations. What would be undue is if reception about the character goes beyond more then one paragraph on the main Star Wars: The Old Republic page. Haleth (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The character seems to be discussed over several pages in this scholarly paper, in addition to the sources that already appear in the article. (I suspect there are other decent sources to be found on Google Scholar.) Josh Milburn (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Josh Milburn Looking through it on Google Books, she's not really discussed in the context of the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[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!} 22:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series: There is definitely some there there, so deletion is out. There are adequate sources for discussing the character at the redirect, but I'm hesitant on whether this is so for as a full article. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Some of the coverage provided here has been convincingly rebutted. Editors are sharply divided over whether the rest is sufficient to constitute SIGCOV. I see both positions as grounded in policy, and so the numerical tilt comes into play, and so I am reading a consensus to delete. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slobodan Lučić[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Has played in the semi-amateour league for whole career. No significant coverage in secondary sources. The main contributor to this article (Bobinho88) is probably the subject himself. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 19:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [5], [6], [7], [8], among mamny more Serbian sources. Clearly significant figure in Serbian football with ongoing career and 100+ appearances in fully pro Serbian First League. Article needs imprvemento, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of those are Q&A interviews with little secondary independent commentary. The first two even start with the same introduction!
Now it is hard to imagine a player staying in the same club throughout his career, both in the top world leagues and in the amateur ones. However, there are incredible examples, and one of them comes from Dobanovci. Slobodan Lučić continues to perform for Budućnost, the club he joined when he was in kindergarten. Even according to the website Transfermarkt, he is officially the most loyal Serbian footballer , and he is in 13th place when all the players on the planet are taken into account!

That's barely three sentences on him, nowhere close to SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 06:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any news article that uses Transfermarkt as a reference is a red flag per WP:TRANSFERMARKT Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also ""Boy from the neighborhood" is the best pseudonym for the portrait of the experienced defender from Dobanov off the field. He jealously guards the sports record, which is seventh in the world, because he is loyal to his home club. That's why for some it's Totti, for others it's Maldinini, for others it's because his physical appearance irresistibly resembles Ibrahimovic, Zlatan's doppelgänger... captain of Budućnost" and "The guy born on February 23, 1988 passed all the younger categories of Buducnosti, and made his debut for the first team - with a goal... during Lučke's career, he played mostly along the right sideline, sometimes forward, sometimes back". Again, clearly significant figure in Serbian football with ongoing career and 100+ appearances in fully pro Serbian First League not to mention onme of most long serving players in the world. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Das osmnezz: As JoelleJay has said, all of the linked sources are interviews and so don't qualify under WP:SIGCOV. You did mention "many more Serbian sources", however. Can you link to some of these, as they may qualify for notability under SIGCOV. For now, my !vote is a delete. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JML1148:, As I show above, the interivews have seconbdary coverage as well. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Das osmnezz: A paragraph or two at most, that are likely based upon the interview itself. Considering that WP:BLP states that we should be very firm about the use of high-quality sources, I believe that they don't qualify under WP:SIGCOV. Can you please provide the additional Serbian sources that you mentioned. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[9] [10] [11] [12] Bobinho88 (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bobinho88 and Svartner, none of those sources qualify for notability. The first source is somewhat marginal, being three paragraphs, however it borders on WP:ROUTINE. Generally, biographies of living people need higher quality sources, so I would discount it. The second source is definitely WP:ROUTINE. The link for the third source doesn't work for me, and the fourth source is a promotional article about an interview. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE refers to sports scores. These aren't sports scores. Also, the third link you couldn't open - perhaps you are somewhere that's censoring Russian websites - you can also read it at archive.org. Not bad. Nfitz (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Regardless of whether it is for a third division club, making +400 appearances for a professional team is something to be considered. From the sources presented by Das osmnezz and Bobinho88, there is WP:SIGCOV in Serbian. The sum of all factors makes WP:GNG acceptable, the article just needs improvements. Svartner (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Unfortunately, I don't see any improvements made to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few sentences of background in interviews does not amount to SIGCOV.

JoelleJay (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Republika.rs (site of two of the sources above) is the digital edition of Srpski Telegraf, which is described as The tabloid is nationalist and pro-government in terms of its content. ... Despite its brief existence - the first issue came out in March 2016 - it became a champion in breaking ethical norms, according to the monitoring of the Serbian Press Council. by Media Ownership Monitor and definitely not fit for a BLP. The two other sources mentioned above are the FK Buducnost website and a trivial news item on Lucic's cheating attempt by "Football Burp", a website that describes itself as "New football jokes, own goals, videos, Fantasy Premier League tips, score predictions and match previews" that has no indication of being RS. JoelleJay (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; as noted above, none of the offered sources are SIGCOV because they are not in-depth and independent coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE are database listings/name mentions, nothing that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 22:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the references provided above, there's also [13]. Yes, it's an interview. Which is fine as an indication of notability; what it's poor for, is sourcing - but that's not what AFD is about. Nfitz (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the exact same Q&A interview discussed above, just reposted on the FK Buducnost website. And you know full well that content directly from the subject does not contribute to GNG, and that governing sports orgs are explicitly considered non-independent. JoelleJay (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's from a press release or something, you may have a point; but please tell me what indicates that this has primary sourcing? Nfitz (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have written newspaper editions, large articles (Kurir and Sportski Zurnal) but I don't know how to attach them Bobinho88 (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobinho88: Newspaper articles separate from anything already listed here? Could you tell us how in-depth is the newspaper coverage of Lucic? (how many sentences and/or paragraphs) Alternatively you could take pictures and email them to me; I'd be willing to take a look (though you might have to help translate some if we go that route). BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it's close-ish to WP:GNG, but there isn't strong WP:SIGCOV that is WP:RELIABLE. Interviews marginally contribute. TLA (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 16:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Marina Balatonfüred[edit]

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

Similar case to Hotel Annabella (AfD). I can't see any evidence of meeting WP:NCORP or WP:NBUILD. All I can find are just the usual travel and tourism websites, which don't confer notability. We don't need an article on every single hotel, only the ones with historical, cultural or architectural significance. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A series of listing in directories does not constitute significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moalem town (kermanshah)[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that this place exists. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, on maps there is an area in the north of Kermanshah called Moallem, which may have been a town. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 21:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SailingInABathTub, Good to know. Do you have a link to these maps? I still can't find any sources. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[14] SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 02:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything besides that Google maps area- which is likely what this refers to anyways. But in the source cited "معلم" is not mentioned at all. Google Maps and other maps are unfortunately not enough to demonstrate notability under WP:NGEO. We shouldn't assume notability, and so I'd delete unless we can find a government source referring to Moalem as a legal entity (rather than say, a neighborhood of Kermanshah) EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 20:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, I tried looking at the 2006 census data, but it was in Persian and could not be easily translated. I feel like if it was a legitimate village, then Carlos Saurez would've made an article on it. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Command & Conquer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kane (Command & Conquer)[edit]

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

Searched really hard for articles discussing the character for SIGCOV (even in a "death by 1000 cuts" sort of way across multiple sources), and at most found this on Killscreen, which is more about his group than him. And after clearing out the pure listicles on here (and a few of the ones left admittedly still feel as such), there's no actual discussion: they're repeating the same few points over and over.

I want there to be something, some deeper analysis, but it just doesn't seem to be there for the character. There's no SIGCOV. He's known, but not notable. Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Command & Conquer I would tend to agree that most coverage is trivial. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chavangphai, Moreh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, which requires at least two RS with substantial coverage. This is just a neighbourhood of the Moreh town. Any useful and well-sourced content can be added there. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Manipur. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my opinion, a large city's neighborhood could be notable, but it still needs significant coverage in reliable sources. That doesn't appear to be the case. If you find the contrary, contact me. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mátyás Lelkes[edit]

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

Lelkes played one professional game before disappearing. I can't find any significant coverage so there are doubts around WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC here. I found a match report mention in Paraméter and a squad list mention in the same source. This is far from significant enough. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Hungary, and Slovakia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Completely fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electo Wilson[edit]

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

Stats stub on a footballer that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. All I can find are this brief transfer announcement and this trivial mention about a good performance in one match. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zsolt Merczel[edit]

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

Played 29 minutes of professional football before disappearing. There is no sign that Merczel Zsolt meets WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I found this blog entry which mentions him but it is way short of the detail required to build a proper biography from. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Henry Duthie[edit]

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

Has some minor mentions, but I don't think it is enough to make WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, South Africa, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, nothing to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As a mere captain he is NN in respect of his military career, and I do not see much else that is notable in this bio. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Any claim to notability is tied to connections with famous places and house guests. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to George Rex, as this is at least a noteworthy point about that subject's line of descent. BD2412 T 21:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Lancaster Herald. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Tuck[edit]

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

Article was redirected to Lancaster Herald (where he has a mention and photo) but was reverted on the argument that all other Lancaster Herald of Arms holders have a Wikipedia. Maybe the others are notable for other things, but Adam Tuck scores zero on the Google radar, other than a mention in relation to the coronation of the king. A redirect would be a quite fair action, in my opinion. Sionk (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Doesn't meet GNG - no inherent notability for heralds... Ingratis (talk) 05:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎ (nom withdrawn). (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ralf Teckentrup[edit]

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

Non notable company executive, sourced entirely to the company's own website. Hardly a good enough fit for Wikipedia. For all we know, this guy could've written the citation himself. Njsky (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Engineering, Technology, Aviation, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not sure a WP:BEFORE was applied here - a quick Google search gives numerous and varied hits, the article should probably have been tagged BLP REFIMPROVE rather than brought to AFD Josey Wales^Parley 21:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find much of anything concerning this- but if you have, I guess this AFD needs to go away, no?. Njsky (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close request The nominator has requested a close - please see my user talk - if an uninvolved editor deems it appropriate please close Josey Wales^Parley 13:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enit Sadiku[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP of a footballer with four minutes of professional experience. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. JTtheOG (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Switzerland. JTtheOG (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) — MATRIX! (a good person!)_{[citation unneeded]} 18:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Binders full of women[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This seems like a phrase that was *maybe* notable in 2012, though honestly now is just a minor footnote in the narrative of the election. A bit of pop culture trivia does not deserve its own wikipedia article. It does not meet the notability threshold. Inspector Semenych (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Language, and Popular culture. Inspector Semenych (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Sexuality and gender, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not temporary, and nothing has changed in that regard since the last deletion discussion. Frivolous afd. Zaathras (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think this is better addressed in an article like the 2012 United States presidential election or the 2012 United States presidential debates? I support merging. Inspector Semenych (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable as an internet meme connected to the 2012 election. Number of sources show this.Casprings (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This remark is more than pop culture trivia or a meme. It sparked meaningful debate about Romney possibly being out of touch with women issues, within the context of a broader discussion on gender pay equity. Cobele2013 (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above - clear long-term notability, if perhaps indicative of a different time in politics. --GnocchiFan (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An article with 16 citations from reliable sources does not belong at AfD. Calling it "pop culture trivia" smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Toughpigs (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does every remark made by a politician need an article? No. Is there anything of lasting significance about this one? No. Has anyone outside the USA ever heard of this? I don't know, but I suspect only a tiny minority. Athel cb (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There has been lasting coverage. They generated another round of news coverage in 2017 when the actual binders turned up. The Boston Globe article has details which could be used to expand the article, from their history, the handwritten notes inside, and the names of women whose resumes were included. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 08:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This keeps coming up, and I don't know what is the problem with it. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ugur Jahangirov[edit]

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

No sign of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The best Azerbaijani sources that I found were Idman and Sportal, both of which are just squad list mentions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K17MJ-D[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It certainly appears to have more of a history than the average HC2/Innovate station, but we look for independent, significant coverage these days, in a way that we weren't doing so much in 2006. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]
- Pivoting to a weak keep per the improvements mentioned below. Obviously I was more right than I thought about the "more history than other HC2/Innovate stations" thing! WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You wouldn't have been able to find this on your own, but this station was the only UPN outlet in San Antonio between 1998 and 2000 and earned itself some SIGCOV that way. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with the sourcing from its pre-Innovate days. Notability isn't temporary. Let'srun (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KBMN-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This one is one of the more-typical run-of-the-mill DTV America/HC2/Innovate LPTVs that only came on in recent years with no local programming, no significant coverage, and little prospect of ever gaining SIGCOV. Another technical survivor of last year's failed bulk nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV/ Let'srun (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Daystar Television Network stations. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KDHU-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Daystar Television Network stations: this station does not appear to have ever been anything other than a Daystar transmitter, not even carrying any of the non-network material that KLTJ may have offered. Even in the pre-2021 looser "notability standards", stations like these were often deemed non-notable (or at least not independently notable), and I'm surprised it wasn't redirected years ago. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Daystar Television Network stations: Subject does not contain the sourcing needed to meet the WP:GNG on its own. Best to redirect to the list of stations affiliated with the network as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KBOP-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG, under any of the call signs the station has operated under. Let'srun (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Chae-uk[edit]

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

Can't find much coverage of him, very likely not notable toobigtokale (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and North Korea. toobigtokale (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:POLITICIAN that states that are presumed notable "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels." The page indicates sources.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject passes WP:NPOL, and being a member of the Politburo adds to the likelihood of sources existing. Curbon7 (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nomination rationale is not convincing. Geschichte (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sai Gurucharitra[edit]

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

Non-notable book. The sources cited here are either the book itself or a non-reliable website venerating the article's subject. Nothing in Google Scholar or Google Books showing any citations to the book or any analysis of it. In any event, this should be blown up, and anything salvageable merged with Sai Baba of Shirdi. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Literature, Islam, Hinduism, and Maharashtra. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and WP:SIGCOV. Regardless of the type of text, every article still needs significant coverage in reliable sources. Right now, the list of references are basically a tautology - cites to itself. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Jung-hun[edit]

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

No indication of notability in article toobigtokale (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. toobigtokale (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Hyun-wook (footballer)[edit]

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

No evidence given as to his notability outside of team, also not fleshed out and unlikely to be in near future. toobigtokale (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. toobigtokale (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally agree with the reasoning above. Looks like not notable or having a rich outreach in mass media. --FightBrightTigh (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Dingle#Sport. Material remains under the redirect for a merger, if needed Star Mississippi 18:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dingle Marathon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It exists, and there is local coverage. I can't see the coverage though to meet WP:N. There were no comments at the 2011 AfD, so it was closed as no consensus. Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thank you for nominating the article because it prompts us to improve it. I added three new references to the article. The references demonstrate news coverage outside of Irish markets, plus book coverage in "Epic Runs of the World". There is enough WP:GNG coverage for this event. --Habst (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination Habst succeeded where I failed, and has shown it is notable. Thanks for your hard work, Boleyn (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or, perhaps, redirect to Dingle#Sport. I note that, of the three references recently added, one was already in place (in the weekly local The Kerryman newspaper). Of the other two, the entry in Epic Runs of the World is perhaps 100 words long and is not what one would call in-depth coverage. I don't know anything about the The Garden Island source (a local Hawaiian paper?), but the piece itself seems like a relatively ROTM travelogue submission. Personally, after removing the uncited (and frankly promotional) editorial some years ago, and seeking to address the total lack of refs, I had noted that I could not find any substantive coverage. Hence, while I was able to remove the "no refs" tag, I could not justify removing the "notability not established" tag. And, frankly, am still not convinced that notability is definitively established. Hence cannot support a "keep". And would recommend a delete or (as an AtD) redirect. Guliolopez (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guliolopez, thank you for responding and for verifying the sources. I added two more book citations to the article, including one indicating a notable winner of the 2009 edition. I think it would help if we had a German-speaking Wikipedian to translate one of the sources, as it seems I can't do machine translation on it. What do you think of the new information? --Habst (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Habst, with thanks for the follow-up and additional info (and in short), I think the new sources are trivial passing mentions. The first source, a biography of Gaelic footballer Weeshie Fogarty, mentions the subject just once. In a trivial passing mention about race-runner John Griffin. ("In 2009 at the age of fifty John [Griffin] won the Dingle Marathon"; Nothing more. Nothing about the marathon itself. This is the very definition of a trivial passing mention.) The German work appears to be a reprint/republishing of this running/travelogue blog. Again, not something that I could describe as in-depth coverage. It is also published by Books on Demand - a self-publishing company. And, even if it did cover the subject in depth (and I don't see that it does), would fall within the scope of WP:SELFPUB guidelines. Guliolopez (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guliolopez, thank you for looking into these sources and thank you for correcting my misread of the My Beautiful Obsession book. I added some more sources into the article, including an archived page about what Runner's World had to say about the race, and some details about the ultra marathon course. What do you think about the new sources? --Habst (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I don't really rank the harrietscottage.com source very highly at all. It appears to be a small Airbnb style property in Dingle that has simply (partially?) republished this 2016 article from The Kerryman newspaper. Which, again, is local coverage. And, in this case, coverage by the event's titular sponsor. "The Kerryman" writing about "The Kerryman Dingle Marathon". Which is hardly independent coverage. Obviously so when you read the flowery tone of the article. In terms of what the original source states (that Runner's World "recently named" the event in a list of the "the 52 best races on earth") that would perhaps contribute to notability. However, I haven't been able to verify it myself. And, if it was the case in 2016, I note that the event does not appear (no longer appears?) on the 2018 edition of the "The 50 best running races in the World"... Guliolopez (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guliolopez, thank you again for the source check. I have edited the article again, and provided another source, this time from Runner's World directly. I think that this coverage, if combined with the Epic Runs of the World book content, demonstrates notability. What do you think? --Habst (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Dingle#Sport. The sources are marginal at best, and Guliolopez has made a convincing case that this event does not quite meet WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jfire, thank you for responding. What do you think about the new Runner's World source I added since your comment? Another angle to approach this article would be to write about notable winners, as I can find some sources reporting to that effect as well. --Habst (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The Runners World piece is 3 sentences in a listicle for upcoming (in 2017) marathons in the British Isles, by what seems to be a contributor rather than a staff member (no other publications). The Lonely Planet blurb is similarly brief and travel guide-esque (puffy unencyclopedic descriptions). No reason to have this as a separate article.

JoelleJay (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 18:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lalremruata Arema[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Best sources found were Goal.com, a trivial mention and a squad listing, Yahoo, a squad listing, and The Sangai Express, which is a trivial mention. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mizoram. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 18:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queshonda Kudaisi[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NPROF. The awards and honours are early career, only completed PhD in 2021, etc. I'm not convinced being a non-profit founder and the coverage regarding COVID is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Happy to be proved wrong. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professors are rarely notable and she seems no exception. No evidence of passing any WP:PROF criterion nor any other notability criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Fussner[edit]

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

Having written one book, whilst it has some reviews, isn't sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR I don't think. Seems like WP:TOOSOON. If more reviews of the book are found, perhaps the book itself warrants an article?? Kj cheetham (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Per WP:SPEEDYKEEP#1. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and there are no other rationale for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rainbow Tulip[edit]

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

~~Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD is a merge/redirect to Pat Mora or Viking Children's Books but that could unbalance either article. Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 18:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Boleyn, I've found some reviews and one article for the book. Please see the article. I'm thinking to keep this article per WP:NBOOK. Best, Bridget (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Latin America, Mexico, and Texas. Bridget (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the reviews added make it pass notability standards for novels. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination thanks, Bridget, I am happy t concede that this is notable. Boleyn (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Clear consensus. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanse (album)[edit]

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

Non notable album Jax 0677 (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are reviews in PopMatters and AllMusic. There are also some relevant interviews in NME, Consequence, Atwood Magazine, Riff, etc.--N Ø 17:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources listed by MaranoFan. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus more on this mid-year list and this year-end list. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First of all, for a band that is clearly notable, the usual procedure for an iffy album is to simply redirect it to the band's article. Even so, this nomination didn't bother to explain why the album is non-notable and shows no indication of any sort of WP:BEFORE search. It would take less time and effort to simply improve the article rather than going through this process, per WP:NOTCLEANUP. An easy keep based on the sources found by the previous voters, and it probably didn't take them too long. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hello all, I changed this article from a redirect to the band's main article, into a separate page of its own. I figured since all of Joywave's other albums have their own page, and Cleanse has been out for 2 years at this point, it would make sense for it to have its own page. I am new to Wikipedia so apologies for the lackluster article. I agree with above that this is a notable album; it also has singles that charted on Billboard. I can definitely work on adding additional info and sources this month, thank you for the links. Lizardzap (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per MoranoFan ihateneo (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 18:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Gyro[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NSPORT, or WP:WPMA/N. The article is currently just WP:PROMOTION and likely WP:COI. Since reliable independent secondary sources are so scant, that's likely all it will ever be.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I don't understand how this was deproded. As per nom, blatant vanity page. Non-notable martial artist with 7 "Blackbelts" Fails everything GNG, BIO, NSPORT. Lethweimaster (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was recently "deproded" because it had already been put up for PROD in 2012. I went back and looked at the state of the article at that time and it claimed he was a 7 time world champion. I suspect that claim made it hard to delete without an AfD discussion. The claim was not reliably sourced and no longer appears in the article. Papaursa (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no evidence that WP:MANOTE is met and my search didn't find the significant independent coverage I think WP:GNG requires. He did appear on a number of martial arts magazine covers, but I don't know if those mags contained significant coverage of him. If someone presents evidence of significant coverage, please let me know and I will reconsider my vote. Papaursa (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My impression is that he was just a model for those covers. The actual mentions of him in magazines I found were all in passing, nothing in-depth. His verifiable competitive record/achievements are negligible too. Spagooder (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Jfire (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Vogel (historian)[edit]

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

~~I couldn't find reliable sources to show he meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. German and French Wikipedia have many references. He has won awards and is a member of learned societies. Passes WP:NPROF easily. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in-depth coverage in reliable sources such as [15] and [16] ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First things I do for info are check the article in the subject's native language and a good faith Google search, both produced sources for notability under WP:PROF. Spagooder (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although WP:PROF can sometimes be problematic for people in the humanities and from pre-internet times, it seems to be working ok in this case. Member of Leopoldina (from the French article) passes WP:PROF#C3, and I think the George Sarton Medal passes #C2. And the French version also lists plenty of in-depth and reliably published sources specifically about Vogel, so he also passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Undoubtedly notable. Per all the above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per good points above. If anyone has sources they trust, please consider adding them to the article. Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dania V. Francis[edit]

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

Assistant prof with a postdoc award, don't see how meets WP:NPROF. Not convinced being in Fortune magazine and a bit of other coverage meets WP:GNG. Seems like WP:TOOSOON perhaps. Kj cheetham (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Economics. Kj cheetham (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this 2013 PhD, although it is a reasonably good start. Inclusion in a listicle is not much progress towards GNG, and the early career award does not contribute much towards notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not yet accumulated the impact needed for WP:PROF#C1, and the Fortune piece is not enough by itself for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass NPROF Mccapra (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above and per my C1 argument when tagging this article for notability earlier. JoelleJay (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the comments above, especially those of David Eppstein (talk) Athel cb (talk) 13:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arc Vehicle[edit]

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

It is too soon currently to establish whether this company is notable or not. Company has no coverage in independent and reliable sources per cursory search on Google and Google News. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't satisfy WP:ORG. Internet searches come up little info along with different companies with similar names, which is also not a good sign. Spagooder (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like there is a recent re-launch of the brand according to sources, but there isn't enough passing WP:ORGCRIT to show notability. Likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's obvious from looking at the content, it has been copied/pasted from somewhere. Earwig's Copyvio Detector is not showing copyvio, but nonetheless, it should be speedy deleted. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Mendoua[edit]

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

An extremely poorly sourced BLP with no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. My searches under "Jean Mendoua" and "Jean Francis Mendoua" brought up little on the footballer of this name other than database sources like Football Database and this Wordpress blog. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cameroon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 13:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DNAS[edit]

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

I am having doubts this meets WP:GNG. Very few mentions, nothing that seems reliable, indepdent and meets WP:SIGCOV that I can see. The term is not mentioned in the cited Polygon article, it is named in the headlines of only two sources - Sony's online manual(?), not independent, and the other source is some online forum... . Not sure what would be a good redirect (merge?) target. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Ndong Ndong[edit]

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

I can prove that he existed because he is mentioned in passing in this blog and he has a Soccerway profile but I can find no evidence of meeting WP:SPORTBASIC #5 nor any other guideline. Created in 2008 by a user that ended up being blocked for creating such articles. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cameroon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Hbomberguy. Any merged content still needs to meet WP:BLP requirements. RL0919 (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Somerton[edit]

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

Telos Pictures:

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

Article created after Somerton was accused by a YouTuber of plagiarism as a redirect to said YouTuber. After that, the full article has turned into a non neutral description of an irrelevant controversy. WikiDasher (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WikiDasher (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Internet, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The plagiarism controversy is clearly the primary reason for Somerton's current notability. We have good RS coverage of the plagiarism controversy and clearly that needs some coverage in Wikipedia. So this all hinges on WP:BLP1E. The question is how should we cover it? I think there are three options:

If this can pass BLP1E then obviously we keep the article, maybe reducing the secondary controversy about the "apology" video to a couple of sentences. (I didn't think it was too overblown until I went looking at how we cover Colleen Ballinger's far more infamous apology video and was surprised to see that we barely mention it.)
If Somerton fails personal notability but the controversy does not then we should recast this as an article about the controversy. That would mean renaming and expanding the article to include the other YouTubers involved and to focus more on the general issues of lazy content mills and pseudo-academic YouTubers not doing their citations properly (or at all). (It would be ironic if we ended up renaming this article "Plagiarism and YouTube" ;-) )
Merge this back to Hbomberguy in a reduced form.

I have yet to decide which I support, except that outright deletion is definitely not an option here. There is too much RS coverage for this to go away completely.

Maybe the next step is to try to determine exactly how notable Somerton is outside of this controversy with a view to answering the BLP1E question. My impression was that he was a fairly big fish in the Canadian and LGBT YouTube scenes and that his film production company, Telos Pictures, had attracted some attention before it folded. In retrospect, I realise that this may not actually be the case. Maybe he was just really good at bigging himself up and I fell for it? I think this could go either way.--DanielRigal (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the plagiarism controversy is only relevant if the content he created were relevant. After googling his name, I don't feel he was very important in the LGBT community. WikiDasher (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I, however, agree with you in that the content itself should not be deleted. I would think moving it to Hbomberguy would be the ideal solution. WikiDasher (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or refactor. The article is 100 percent about a plagiarism controversy that sank an online influencer's career, with zero biographical depth even as an essayist. Selective merge back to Hbomberguy. However, I am not against refactoring it into a more general article about plagiarism on YouTube as suggested above. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor. In terms of Somerton's notability, its mostly his self-destruction. However, reliable sources also comment on his spreading of misinfo and the Telos film company scandal.

There are other queer YouTubers who are claiming other harassment from him; the ace couple on YouTube have suggested his coverage of the asexual community was horrific, and Jessie Gender has apparently been targeted by him during some scandal involving him targeting the Nebula streaming service. these are all youtube videos, which cannot be cited on wikipedia? homo momo (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as the person who originally made this article, im a bit biased. I've been hoping these other scandals get more coverage, but as it seems to have died down a bit in the weeks since, i assume the plagiarism scandal will be the main thing that is notable about this guy. homo momo (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

one possible source that discusses james somerton outside of just plagiarism is this student journalism website that interviewed him a year ago. https://tigermedianet.com/?p=63554

Not sure how reliable this is, as its mostly james doing self-promotion. homo momo (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, honestly lets Merge actually. yall make good points :D homo momo (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Had thought about making such an article myself, but it might not pass WP:SUSTAINED. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it seems that the notable thing here is the hbomber video and not somerton, we could move and expand this to cover that whole vid—blindlynx 02:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hbomberguy. Feel like it could be better talked about there. Wandering Morpheme 23:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hbomberguy, but I'd be open to a split article about the plagiarism video/controversy per DanielRigal's suggestion. Seems like that topic could pass GNG, and info about Somerton would be added there as appropriate. Regardless, the only other RS I could find from before the video was a Mary Sue article from 2022 which was updated in the wake of this controversy (but you can see the original in an archive). PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Mattl (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hbomberguy, we could probably just create a designated section of his page dedicated to the plagarism drama Cereally8 (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or refactor. After a bit more searching I'm in agreement with everybody else that there isn't enough here for a BLP. Maybe this could be an article about the video but, as it fails to mention any of the other channels called out for plagiarism, it would take some work to make rebalance it. Merging it to Hbomberguy might be the easier option. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively!) to Hbomberguy. Reliable sources are all about the plagiarism scandal, and most of them seem to be discussing Brewis' investigation and video more than they are discussing Somerton. Maybe there's an article on James Somerton plagiarism scandal or Plagiarism on Youtube to be written, but given how recent it all it it remains to be seen if there's any WP:SUSTAINED coverage, and given that everyone involved is a living person I would err on the side of not having an article which is going to be a perennial BLP/NPOV nightmare unless we are really sure it's important to have an article on. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree with blindlynx regarding the Hbomber video - it can easily fill a page by itself. BlueMonday1984 (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are not that many sources most of the wikipedia articles would consider useful/reliable/etc. for the entire Hbomberguy video on its own, I think? Unless I'm missing some? We can't cite the actual youtube video by itself, can we? homo momo (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, see User:Caeciliusinhorto. There is definitely an article to be written on yt plagiarism but subject does not make sense as a standalone article — FenrisAureus ▲ (she/they) (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekene Igwe[edit]

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

Poorly sourced since it was created in 2009 by a user that ended up being blocked for such behaviour. I can't find any significant coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The Czech source Deník has an article that has a couple of quotes from him but gives us no independent coverage about Igwe, aside from the fact that he played in the lower levels of the Czech Republic at the time. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waskito Sujarwoko[edit]

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

Played 8 professional matches over a decade ago but no clear evidence of WP:SIGCOV or WP:SPORTBASIC. I found an image caption in Republik, a passing mention in Viva and a squad listing in Detik but nothing close to significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I am unable to find any SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elijeu De Jesus Belo Soares[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Kept previously because database sources showed that he had 2 caps. Being an international footballer is no longer a valid reason to have an article and WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC are, instead, the relevant criteria. I can't find any non-database coverage on him so I don't think that he even passes WP:SPORTBASIC #5. I would recommend deletion this time around unless anyone can provide clear significant coverage of him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heri Saputra[edit]

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

I can't find any Indonesian coverage that meets WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG, even when searching under the alternative spelling of "Hery Saputra". Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Phelps (author)[edit]

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

Per the nomination here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Knauff, this article is created by the same User:Jlksptn. Complete PR article with no reliable sources. Has 8 sources from News Max which is considered unreliable. Fails GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Economics. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is very little to indicate notability. Most of the coverage is in non-RS (Newsmax, Fox Business TV segment). Source 8 (NY Times) does not mention Phelps. The subject released a book in 2023, but it doesn't appear to have been reviewed in any significant outlets, which means the subject doesn't meet author notability reqs. Thenightaway (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. It is so poorly written (much in passive voice and with weasel words), that even if sourced, it would have to be re-written from scratch. The sourcing is very poor as well. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Knauff[edit]

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

Fails GNG. This article states that Jeremy Knauff is the founder of Spartan Media. Spartan Media website has ties with Entrepreneur, Benzinga, Fox News/ Fox Business, CNN and Forbes as displayed on their homepage. The sources cited in this article are only from the above news portals. This should have been G11'ed Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Businesspeople. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only substantive coverage of the subject is this bland puff piece on Fox News[17]. The Forbes cites are unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. The Fox Business cites are just brief remarks by the subject where they offer a bland opinion on business. Thenightaway (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Puff piece. Reads like a CV and not shown noteworthy for separate article. WP:NOTNEWS applies. Kierzek (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:SPAM. Not only it is written as spam, I am at a loss as to see what he's done that is actually notable. In 2024, everyone knows what we are not a free web host. 18:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turn Off the Lights (extension)[edit]

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

It fails GNG, as just another trivial item in the sea of browser extensions. It is a trap for WP:PROMO WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTMANUAL WP:LINKFARM. — Smuckola (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - The article is currently redirected, to a target that doesn't mention the subject, and without an AFD tag. While I certainly see the merits of this nomination, none of what I outlined should be the the set up for the duration of its AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: I'm confused about what to do and why you didnt do it. Should this redirect be reverted back to article form and filed at AfD? Can Twinkle add the notice to an existing one? I've used Twinkle on subsequent filings. Thanks! — Smuckola (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should restore the article for the duration of the AFD and add the AFD tag to it. I didn't do it myself because I already saw quite a bit back and forth on redirecting the article in its page history. I don't actually use Twinkle so I'm not sure how it handles this sort of thing. Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Ok, done. How's that? Wikipedia's typical usability rating of 2/10 plummets to -40/10 with anything involving deletion or countless other basic tasks. And does it warrant you lodging a vote since you said you see the merit? Just checking! — Smuckola (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks right, thank you. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not have significant coverage and I am unable to find any reliable secondary sources. Appears to be promotional. The only reference is from a somewhat-obscure awards show that doesn't have its own Wikipedia page. The article is full of chunks of edits from IP editors (62% of edits) whose only contributions are to this article which makes me think there is something suspicious going on with it. --StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find the sources for it to meet the WP:GNG, and I don't think it's particularly likely to think they exist. It appears to just be a free web extension that alters the lighting when watching YouTube videos in windowed mode? No offense, I'm sure it's a fine product...but I don't see it inspiring much commentary from publications. Sergecross73 msg me 14:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Correct, that's what it is. The most generic feature any computer ever had, which was immediately adopted by every operating system and major website as "night mode". — Smuckola (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KFBU-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Montana. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K25AL[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Arizona. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 13:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K47DR[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and New Mexico. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Socialist Party (Portugal)[edit]

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

I may be unable to verify this due to my lack of knowledge of Portuguese politics and also that there are similarly-named parties, but I couldn't verify this information and its notability. It has WP articles in other languages, but without good refs or where it is merged to Left Block, which is another option here, but I wouldn't propose merging unref info. Boleyn (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article is notable and is covered by many reliable sources:

https://sol.sapo.pt/2022/02/02/os-partidos-que-ja-se-foram-e-nao-voltam-mais/
https://www.cne.pt/sites/default/files/dl/participantes_ref280698.pdf – recognition from the government (primary source)
Many books listed in Google Books: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Partido+Socialista+Revolucion%C3%A1rio%22+%22Portugal%22

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, absolutely. Keep-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per comments above, Boleyn (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KCLJ-LP[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Missouri. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KCLG-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Missouri. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. RL0919 (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMUN-LP[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Indiana. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Some coverage in Muncie paper. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG with significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Specifically, the stories cited from The Star Press. Jaireeodell (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the GNG with the coverage provided above. Let'srun (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mong, Azad Kashmir[edit]

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

I hope to be proved wrong on this one, and am aware there is a language issue. I couldn't find reliable sources to verify this, and there is more than one Mong. If sources can be found, this village (or collection of villages?) should meet WP:NPLACE but it needs to be verifiable. The Urdu WP article's only reference is that it is based on English WP. Boleyn (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced search for:
"Mang, Azad Kashmir"

In books/documents
Google Books · Questia Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Questia · New York Times Los Angeles Times Wall Street Journal · Washington Post Financial Times · BBC News The Age · The Hindu News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal Microsoft Academic: new · original Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central · Questia HighBeam · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

More
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources The Wikipedia Library

It might help in searching to know that it's anglicized on the maps as Mang not Mong, with girls' and boys' schools and colleges, two hospitals, a mosque (33°47′49″N 73°37′52″E / 33.79705135794899°N 73.63109959171949°E (Jamia Masjid Mang)), and — up the hill along Mang College Road — the Mang Campus of the University of Poonch (33°48′28″N 73°38′22″E / 33.80778645723632°N 73.63937308459322°E (University of Poonch Mang campus)). Amusingly, this anglicization is piped in Sudhanoti District#Administrative divisions. Uncle G (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Did the best I could to find and add 3 new references to the above article. This is a disputed territory between Pakistan and India, as we all know. Normally I like to use Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, Government of Pakistan website's Archived references which are Detailed and show small towns and villages. In this case, they are not available because that website does not cover Azad Kashmir. So I did the best I could...Ngrewal1 (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly appears to exist and meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Fashions[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:NORG. Article created by user with apparent COI. The only significant (i.e. not routine) coverage I could find was about the company paying low wages, but that's only one article [18]. Don't think it's the same as the middle eastern company ([19]). Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and New Zealand. Darcyisverycute (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Sivan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Article seems to be created in a rush in a promotional tone. Redirect to Kudimahaan. Can be considered WP:TOOEARLY since Kuttidhadha , Just for Jatti and Dhur did not release in 2019.

All the sources are about the film and not him except for News24, which is unreliable. DareshMohan (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.Delete Lack of reliable sources and fails to meet WP:NACTOR. RomanRaju (talk) 10:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For now it fails WP:NACTOR. Macbeejack ☎ — Preceding undated comment added 15:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete a promotional article and not more than a trash article on Wikipedia. 84.247.96.4 (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NACTOR.Tame Rhino (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:00, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Commercial Biotechnology[edit]

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

Not in the Science Citation Index, per https://mjl.clarivate.com/. Its site is a wordpress page. Made by someone named Thinkbiotech who is a sockpuppet of the journal's website. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Biology. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:29, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's in Scopus, in COMPENDEX, and is evaluated in the Norwegian Register for Scientific Journals (level 1 journal). Easy pass of WP:NJOURNALS. That its website is powered by wordpress is irrelevant. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are 30,000 journals in Scopus. Why should there be an article for any of them, rather not just lists? (even then we would recreate the work of indexers). More importantly, I did not find any independent SIGCOV relating to this publication. बिनोद थारू (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know why encyclopedias should have articles about things, see WP:PURPOSE. 30,000 is a fraction of all the journals ever published. By comparison, there are about 30,000 medical journals currently published. Add non-medical journals (physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, botany, engineering, ...), humanities journals (philosophy, arts, political science), law journals, mathematics journals... and I'd be surprised if that was even one tenth of all journals ever published. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's 7 million articles on Wikipedia. I don't believe anyone would want 500,000 of them be stub pages about some academic journal. Question. I was more interested in getting a reply to the second part of my comment. WP:JOURNALCRIT says
It is possible for a journal to qualify for a stand-alone article according to this standard and yet not actually be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Independent, third-party sources must exist for every topic that receives its own article on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Verifiability: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.").

With that in mind, can you offer some significant coverage about the journal, unassociated with thinkBiotech or Yali Friedman? बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Scopus, Compendex, NRSJ, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are indexers (databases), not third-party reliable sources. They don't qualify for WP:N or WP:SIGCOV. बिनोद थारू (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indexers are by very definition third party reliable sources. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasoning provided by Headbomb and WP:HEY. --Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG (the only relevant guideline) due to lack of significant, prosaic coverage. See wp:IINFO for why articles can't be based off of indices and databases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mach61 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Mach61. There is a decided lack of SIGCOV in IRS sources, and as NJOURNALS is merely an essay it does not override the requirement to meet GNG.

JoelleJay (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequately sourced, and tracking changes of name and publisher is the helpful kind of information that is hard to present in a form other than prose (e.g., tabular). Nor is this one of the rare edge cases where we risk inflating the perceived reliability of a journal that was indexed in the past but has since fallen into disrepute. XOR'easter (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does anything you said here establish notabiility for this journal? Verifiability isn't the issue. Mach61 (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Namhsan. Star Mississippi 00:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tawngpeng[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a district and fails WP:NGEO. Topic was likely referring to Kyaukme District, which this would be a duplicate of or inferred incorrectly from Tawngpeng State. Sources cited talk about the princely state or don't mention Tawngpeng at all EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 14:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. 14:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 14:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a puzzle, but perhaps redirect to Namhsan if we can't be sure? SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 21:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I think that would work well as a redirect EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 07:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of mayors and lord mayors of Parramatta. Star Mississippi 00:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sameer Pandey[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:POLITICIAN, not sure if this passes WP:GNG. Propose redirect to List of mayors and lord mayors of Parramatta. J2m5 (talk) 08:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. J2m5 (talk) 08:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jharkhand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors and lord mayors of Parramatta per nom. Djflem (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—a Google search returns significant coverage, particularly relating to his Indian heritage, from various reliable outlets. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 18:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's worth stating the obvious that should the result of this discussion be to keep rather than redirect, then this article needs to be rewritten based on those sources, because the current article is clearly written with a political agenda, using mostly original research. J2m5 (talk) 09:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors and lord mayors of Parramatta. LibStar (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. However if someone believes they can further address and re-scope, happy to provide as a draft. Star Mississippi 00:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turfan volcano[edit]

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

The Global Volcanism Program does no longer have an entry for this volcano and the only other source (doi:10.1016/S1367-9120(02)00081-0) is extremely undetailed. I notice that this old source explicitly says that identifying a volcano there was an error. The existence of this volcano was already questioned on the talk page, the source proffered there is dead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this shouldn't be here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly an error. –dlthewave ☎ 20:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looking at satellite imagery for the coordinates given by the Global Volcanism Program source doesn't show anything to indicate there is any sort of "volcano" located at or near the given coordinates. Searching it up doesn't yield any useful results either other than briefly mentioning the supposed 1120 eruption. Unless there is solid proof to prove otherwise that there (pretty unlikely) was a volcano there at some point, then this article should be deleted. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Volcanoguy 00:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are historical reports of a volcano, and this area has a history of volcanic activity[20]. Even if modern geologists might disagree (a big if?) it's not like this is a hoax. I've added a cite to an 8th century poem by frontier poet Cen Shen. Oblivy (talk) 03:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That source talks about volcanic activity in the Permian more than 200 million years ago, a completely different topic than historical volcanic activity. We can't interpret that poem or undetailed historical sources as referring to volcanic activity; the Turpan-Hami basin knows coal seam fires (e.g this source) so unless a source distinguishes between the two scenarios, we can't know that the poem refers to volcanic eruptions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand the source is not one showing active volcanic activity, although I am led to believe[21] that there is an active fault line in that area. But the fact that you may doubt whether the historic record is accurate doesn't negate that there are historic sources which refer to volcanoes (the poem refers to a volcano near Jiaohe, not necessarily an eruption). You aren't going to be able to go back and interrogate historical sources from 1000 years ago - we have what we have.
    The article on Dauvergne, cited in the nomination, is a commentary on another traveler's report which notes reports of volcanoes in the area, although it focuses on European claims rather than Chinese ones.
    May I suggest that the way to resolve this is not to delete the article, but to contextualize the claim that there was once an active volcano in the area? Oblivy (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I figure that there is active faulting there, but a fault is still a completely different thing than a volcano. The problem with contextualizing is that that poem is quite undetailed and a primary source, anyway. Kind of hard to call that WP:SIGCOV. I also wonder if the translation of the poem, Chinese word to the English word "volcano", is accurate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Dauvergne article is relatively significant coverage since it identifies the reports of volcanoes and then attempts to debunk. There's also evidence of an earlier claim (unfortunately can't access the article now, but it's what's being debunked).
        火山 is volcano. The poem title includes 郡在火山脚, "county at the foot of the volcano", and it includes the verse 火山赤崔巍 which is something like "red, towering volcano". Oblivy (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure? Because to me and also to Dr. Regel that looks like a reference to Flaming Mountains, which aren't volcanic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes? 火山 means volcano (see [22] "Volcanoes are geological structures with special shapes formed when high-temperature magma and related gases and debris erupt from the planet's crust in the magma chamber under the earth's surface.")
        I suppose it's possible that there was some lexical drift from Tang Dynasty Chinese, but more likely the Regel interpretation is an orientalist gloss (split the characters, 海豚 becomes "sea pig" instead of "dolphin"). Somewhere I have a 19th century Chinese-English dictionary, but I'd have to search for it. Oblivy (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment I have expanded the article based on the above discussion, to include Humboldt's work and the controversies over the existence of the volcano. Oblivy (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Not very strong ones, though - Earth's landscape : an encyclopedia of the world's geographic features has no page number given and gbtimes article that gives no indication of its own source and is from a non-specialist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough, I just wanted to show the article could be made into something that discusses the discussion of its existence, rather than the more controversial question of whether historical accounts were correct. The GB times one isn't mine. Oblivy (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have edited the article to describe the controversy over the existence of the volcano. As it stands now, it no longer a claim that a volcano actually exists, but a documentation of earlier claims and later rebuttals to those claims. The original rationale no longer applies, and the prior votes are based on a version of the article that no longer exists. Thanks to @Jo-Jo Eumerus for their valuable input.
Either this article should survive deletion on grounds of WP:HEY or it should be relisted to generate further discussion. Oblivy (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hrm. Here I worry about the fact that we are talking about a volcano close to Jiaohe ruins (SW from Turfan) and also about the Flaming Mountains (NE of Turfan). Are we sure the sources are talking about the same area? It's these kinds of little incongruencies that are a problem in articles with only-barely WP:SIGCOV sourcing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you look at a map, Jiaohe is about 10km down the road from modern-day Turpan. Both sit along the base of the Tian Shan. The "Flaming Mountain" moniker is applied to a long strip of the Tianshan, probably more than 100km wide (and the person who suggested the conflation of the two was writing about 10,000km away in London). Oblivy (talk) 23:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, the person writing about the red rocks in Turfan was Johann Albert von Regel who lived in China and travelled the place and didn't even write in English let alone live in London. Uncle G (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to determine if the updated article scope is enough to negate the deletion arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ditto for last relisting. It would be helpful if editors who voted "Delete" reviewed the current state of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As implied above, I still favour deletion. These little contradictions make me question whether the sources are talking about one topic. I don't know of any place where the Permian is considered "prehistoric"; usually in both science and colloquial "prehistoric" means when humans were around but didn't write down anything yet. Still think WP:SIGCOV is not met, with passing mentions and a primary source (the poem). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; independent assessment of the recent changes made would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So we have some old pems; Alexander von Humboldt saying there was a volcano in 1849; an 1881 source saying that Humboldt was wrong, and misled by the old poems, based upon the reports of Johann Albert von Regel who lived in China; and 21st century geologists also deciding that this is an error. And on that we are basing an article about a Turfan volcano. Why are we propagating this error 170 years later, and going back to the poems that have been contradicted for 140 years? Uncle G (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that delete remains clearly the right outcome here. Trojan efforts have been made to save it, but they are misguided, and we don't want a geography article about a non-existent structure. The fact that early writers made mistakes about it isn't sufficient justification. Nor is this a notable hoax, which might have formed a rationale for keeping it. It's time to delete this now, the topic has been well explored. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This fails per the nom. UtherSRG (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ and no indication any additional input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 00:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Arfat Shaikh[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:NPOL because he is a un-elected politician and he had served as a Nominated minister, the post may or may not be notable. — Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Maharashtra. Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 07:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 'Cabinet minister status' doesn't mean that he is minister in the cabinet or member of assembly. Fails GNG and not passes NPOL. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the subject clearly does not hold a posiition that would accord presumed notability under WP:NPOL; that, however, is not grounds for deletion. Whether or not there is sourcing to satify the GNG remains moot as no actual analysis of sources present either in the article or available elsewhere has been presented. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appointment as Chief of the development committee of the new Ayodhya mosque guaranteed to ensure a high profile; there's ongoing coverage of Shaikh since 2017: [23] [24] [25] [26]. Satisfies the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Ante (name). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antė[edit]

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

Fails WP:NNAME and has no WP:SIGCOV. I can't seem to find any reliable and relevant sources. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I moved this here two years ago with basically the same rationale, [27]. If nothing came up in this time, there isn't much WP:POTENTIAL. Let's do a courtesy ping of the original author of that line from 2019, @TonyTheTiger: --Joy (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The history and usage of a name is notable in and of itself. Keep and add references as necessary; don't delete just to delete. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A name is not inherently notable and there is nothing special about this name. It fails WP:NNAME and its content could be sufficiently explained in Ante (name) anyway, but as Joy argued, there may not even be a need for that. Also, adding unreliable sources isn't going to help your cause. How about don't keep just to keep? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don’t see the point in deleting articles just for the heck of it. I found some sources that verify the meaning with a 10 second Google search, which means there are quite likely better published sources in existence that I don’t have access to. It is apparently the Lithuanian version of Tony, which also suggests that there are probably notable people who go by the nickname. I don’t have the time or inclination to dig up all the references here but I don’t like nominations for deletion for articles that should be improved instead.
  
  Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't like to see articles that could be improved nominated for deletion either, but I believe that this name simply isn't notable. As I previously mentioned, there are no Wikipedia articles on people with this name, and there is nothing significant about it, so it fails the basic rule of WP:NNAME. Many of those sources explaining etymology are likely unreliable. I don't know if better sources exist, but I sure can't find any. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Suriname0 (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll suggest returning the content to Ante (name) as an alternative to deletion. I do, however, note Joy's argument that there doesn't appear to be much potential for improvement. This is therefore a weak merge suggestion. Cnilep (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ante (name), as a reasonable solution. BD2412 T 21:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Madera Country Estates, California[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Another subdivision which should have been deleted on the first try but which was kept because of a group nom. Since maybe one of those at most should have been kept, here we go around again. Again, it was entered from the mysterious Occidental College map and then applied to the topos, but it's obviously a large subdivision, and references to it in law say so. It seems to have some existence as a district of some kind within the county, but I'm not convinced that this means legal recognition of a settlement. Everything else is real estate. Mangoe (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable subdivision. The only coverage in newspapers.com is one WP:MILL story from the '80s over a local land-use dispute. Homeowners opposed an ORV park at the lake south of the subdivision and won. Doesn't meet WP:GEOLAND. Jfire (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator, sweep it away.James.folsom (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WUDW-LD[edit]

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

Subject doesn't meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV independent of the source. Article was part of a bundled AfD last year that closed as no consensus but there is nothing to indicate this meets the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yet another run-of-the-mill DTV America/HC2/Innovate station that has only been around for a decade, carrying nothing but national programming, without having ever attained the requisite significant coverage. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Wcquidditch. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reggae Rhythms[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 discussing the station in depth. Let'srun (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Radio. Let'srun (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it appears this is a channel where finding the required significant coverage would be very difficult, as the phrase "reggae rhythms" appears in contexts unrelated to the Sirius channel. Looks like it's not mentioned on any of the Sirius XM channel lists either, which would be the only alternative to deletion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kely Alonzo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. No indication of notability. All I found were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Bolivia. JTtheOG (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Clearly fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Livingstone Blue Bears football team[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NSEASONS, having finished the season with a losing record at the Division II level. Let'srun (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and North Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an HBCU program with a long and distinguished history -- the first HBCU to play college football back in 1892. That doesn't mean that every season is notable, but I am finding extensive coverage of the 2023 team in the Salisbury Post. E.g., [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]. I am also finding coverage in other independent sources: BET, Winston-Salem Journal. Hopefully, someone is willing to use the available sourcing to improve the article. Cbl62 (talk) 10:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Willis Linn Jepson. There doesn't seem to be much to merge, but adding any information to the target article can be carried boldly. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Little Oak Ranch[edit]

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

No evidence of notability independent from Jepson. The two sources are his memoirs and a one-sentence mention. A redirect to Willis Linn Jepson would be good. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you not just do that, then? It has taken you twice as many edits so far just to nominate this for deletion as it would have to do a merge and redirect. Uncle G (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, anyway. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not much info worth merging --94rain ^Talk 03:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heba Zaqout[edit]

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

Tragic death but Zaqout appears to be an encyclopedically non-notable artist per our guidelines. Even taking into consideration the difficulties Palestinian arts face and the lack of coverage their work may receive, there just isn't much to justify notability per WP:ARTIST, mostly a few local exhibitions and obituary pieces. Mooonswimmer 03:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Women, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Insufficient notability here, but RIP. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, not notable as an artist, not much details on her death. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E + WP:BDP recent death exception, unless additional reliable source coverage can be found (possibly in Arabic). Marokwitz (talk) 12:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. RL0919 (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Islands Film and Television School[edit]

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

Unable to find N:ORG level coverage of this for profit film school. Star Mississippi 01:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Education, Schools, and Canada. Star Mississippi 01:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Although this article could use some work, it appears that it has enough sources (included and elsewhere) to confirm notability. Rublamb (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see evaluation of the added references.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ with a move, if needed, per transliteration concerns raised by editors. Star Mississippi 00:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serdzong Monastery[edit]

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

I can't find any results about the details of this monastery or its location in search results or on Google Maps but I did find a few tour operators that mention Serdzong Monastery as a tour destination. Might be a misspelling but the lack of results seem to indicate that, even if it does exist, it's not sufficiently notable for a standalone article. Kazamzam (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and China. Kazamzam (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this may be Saizong Monastery (赛宗寺) in Xinghai County, though I'm struggling to find sources that use the spelling "Serdzong". There are lots of Chinese-language sources online about Saizong Monastery (here are a few: [40][41][42][43][44]), so if that's the correct topic I think it meets GNG. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mx. Granger - I agree that this may be the Saizong Monastery (phonetically in Tibetan that would be Saetsong, which isn't that far off), but given that there is so little information about the Serdzong monastery on this article it's difficult to confirm if they're the same topic or just two monasteries with similar names in Qinghai. If we can determine that this is the Saizong Monastery, we can add a redirect and a note for the Chinese name. What do you think? Thanks for finding all these. Kazamzam (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. If the article is kept, it should of course use whatever name is most common in English-language sources, with redirects for alternative names. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no reason to keep a tiny stub on a monastery we're not even sure exists for a spelling no one uses. If someone finds useful sources and wants to write about 赛宗寺, they don't need the page history here (there is effectively none) and won't benefit from this redirect (who would use it?). -- asilvering (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. The sources found by Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) about Saizong Monastery (Chinese: 赛宗寺) contribute to notability. Saizong monastery is the same monastery as Serdzong monastery, which is the same monastery as the Drakar Treldzong Thösamling monastery.
  Kanamaru 2000, p. 204 verifies that the Serdzong monastery is called the "Treldzong Gompa" and is in Drakar Treldzong. The source notes that "The monastery itself belongs to the Gelukpa order".
  Gruschke 2001, pp. 91, 274 notes that "Saizong Si" is the Chinese name of the Drakar Treldzong Thösamling monastery. The source notes that the Thösamling Monastery of Drakar Treldzong belongs to the Gelugpa order.
2. Kanamaru, Atsushi (2000). Mapping the Tibetan World. Reno, Nevada: Kotan Publishing. pp. 203–204. ISBN 0-9701716-09. Retrieved 2024-01-11 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Places to See: Treldzong Gompa (Serdzong). The monastery is about 30km to the west, north-west of Xinghai, and at 3,600m it is far from other human habitation. Behind the site there are rocky peaks, and the surrounding area is called Drakar Treldzong, or 'Monkey Fort made of White Rocks.' This is one of the most sacred places in the Amdo region, and there are many other famous sites connected with Guru Rinpoche (Padmasambhava) and Tsongkhapa in the area. The monastery itself belongs to the Gelukpa order, but the area is well-known as a place for trainee monks from the Nyingmapa order to practice asceticism. At Xinghai there are some 4-wheel-drive cars available, and to charter one costs about Y200 for a round trip to the monastery. Sharing the cost of the car is advisable; otherwise, the cost is rather prohibitive, as it is only 2 hours to the gompa. The landscape on the way is somewhat reminiscent of the Grand Canyon.
3. Gruschke, Andreas (2001). The Cultural Monuments of Tibet's Outer Provinces. Bangkok: White Lotus Press. pp. 91–92, 181, 258, 274. ISBN 9-789747-534597. Retrieved 2024-01-11 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes on page 91: "Their most important monastic centre is located at Thösamling Monastery of Drakar Treldzong. Like most of the region's lamaseries it is a late foundation (18th to 20th century), grown in size due to its location within one of the most important sacred sites of Amdo: Drakar Treldzong, the White Crag Monkey Fort, which is one of Amdo's four main power-places. ... Drakar Treldzong Thösamling: After a dozen kilometres the track becomes difficult, as it descends into the Tohoba Canyon. Some 30 km on the Gelugpa monastery Thösam Yönten Dargyling of Drakar Treldzong (brag dkar sprel rdzong thos bsam yon tan dar rgyas gling) is reached (Chin. Saizong Si)."
  The book further notes: "This large monastery has a rather short history. It was founded in 1923 by Rongwo Gönchen's 3rd Arutsang Lama (1888-1959) to fulfil his predecessor's last wish. At the beginning there was just a lama residence and several monks' quarters, but in 1927 a large extension was possible as the lama gained the support of local chiefs and Ngolok tribes, as well as chiefs from Kokonor, Qilian Mountains and other areas; then an assembly hall and a Manjushri Temple were built. In the early 1950s a larger dukhang with 100 pillars was constructed, as well as a gönkhang and a Maitreya Temple. Thus, within a period of only several decades, Thösamling Monastery developed into the largest lamasery in south Kokonor district and a Buddhist cultural centre for the entire region. By 1958, 18 stupas and 15 residential buildings were added and 28 tulkus were among the 520 to 620 monks. Reconstruction works began in 1981 and brought the monastery back to its former extensive size, with the large assembly hall as the core of the complex."
  The book further notes: "Thösamling Monastery in Drakar Treldzong is a spiritual as well as a ritual centre. The exoteric college established in 1929 is well-known and often visited by learned lamas from Drepung, Labrang, Kumbum, Rongwo and other famous lamaseries. They add to the local students' progress, while Thösamling offers various ritual activities for pilgrims and Buddhist believers of nearly the entire Amdo area."
  The book has a "panoramic view of the monastery" Drakar Treldzong Thösamling on page 181.
  The book notes on page 258: "Drakar Treldzong Thösamling, or Thösam Yönten Dargyeling (brag dkar sprel rdzong thos bsam yon tan dar rgyas gling), monastery in central Amdo (Xinghai county of Qinghai) 91f, 102, 181f"
  The book notes on page 274: "Saizong Si, Chin. name of → Drakar Treldzong Thösamling".
4. Buckley, Michael (2002). Tibet: The Bradt Travel Guide. Bucks: Bradt Travel Guides. p. 235. ISBN 1-84162-061-0. Retrieved 2024-01-11 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Further south, the road crosses a mountain range to enter the more Tibetan grasslands in the county of Shinghai. This small county town is 17km off the main road, and a road continues across the Yellow River to link up with Tongte. Some 15km south of town, over a small river, is the remarkably attractive monastery of Drakar Treldzong, or White Rock Monkey Fortress Temple. There is a half-day kora around its craggy peaks and several retreat caves in the interior, some of which are associated with Guru Rinpoche and the important Amdo scholar Shabkar. A few nuns and long-haired Nyingma lamas are usually in attendance at the caves; the monastery itself houses about 400 Geluk monks."
5. Dowman, Keith (1997). The Sacred Life of Tibet. San Francisco: Thorsons. p. 293. ISBN 0-7225-3375-6. Retrieved 2024-01-11 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Drakar Treldzong (Brag dkar sprel rdzong), in Tsigorthang county, directly to the north of Machen county, south of the county town Xinghai Xian. White Rock Monkey Citadel, a mountain power place, is a fabled power place of Guru Rimpoche and one of Amdo's best known pilgrimage destinations. The five-hour khorra circuit around the peak includes the Great Guru's meditation cave and his Dorje Phuklam cave that has a skylight formed by the passage of his dorje; his consort Yeshe Tsogyel's hermitage, called the Khandro Tsokhang, the Assembly Hall of the Sky Dancers; a renowned sky-burial site; a bardo thang passage to crawl through; several self-manifest images with magical properties; sites relating to Je Tsongkhapa's stay in the area; a vital Geluk gompa with 300 monks; and several inhabited hermitages."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Serdzong Monastery to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 00:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schleicher Electronic[edit]

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

Little indication of notability. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Germany. PepperBeast (talk) 02:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added sources and cleaned up the article a bit. The company is notable but almost all of the sources are in Germen. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. RL0919 (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Welcome to Night Vale episodes[edit]

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

The list does not pass WP:NLIST and the WP:OVERQUOTING is a violation of WP:CV. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Radio, and Lists. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: I've seen worse. I would rather see some edits made correcting the quoting issues (which I don't think rise to the level of CopyVio, not even borderline CopyVio, IMO), refining some of the sources (there are plenty, it's a popular podcast), and working with the other editors via the talk page. Make some attempt at improving first. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutralhomer: What do you think about draftification? I don't know if the list should be kept in mainspace, considering the possible copyright issues, and draftspace could give the article some time to be developed and sourced. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JML1148: I'd be OK with that. With the normal messages sent to WP:PODCAST, WP:RADIO, and WP:WPRS asking for their input. I think between the three projects, they can bring this back mainspace status. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per comments above. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The issue is with how the article is written; it overuses quotations from Nightvale. If the quotations are removed or replaced this would resolve the issue. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. No merger or redirect target has been identified, so there is no ATD. Star Mississippi 00:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs written and produced by Bang Chan[edit]

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

If the individual artist Bang Chan himself is not notable, is their list of credits notable? I don't believe so here. Evaders99 (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Evaders99 (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Dratify per nom. I don't see how the list of credits which looks like a WP:DIRECTORY is considered notable when the subject itself isn't per recent AfD. Furthermore, the list of songs are majortively all part of the subject's group activities hence maybe considered merging relevant contents to the group's similar listing if applicable. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's no reason to keep this article, as the associated singer has been redirected. I imagine anything that relating to the group would be already in the group's corresponding page. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: South Korea and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking almost equivalent to a directory. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge What if instead of deleting it, it became an article of "songs written by 3RACHA"? I think they are the only ones I would see sense to have their own article, since they are the main team of the group in terms of composition and production, but I don't know if it would be qualified as an article. (talk) 1:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC−04:00)

But where do you think we should merge this? Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 09:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my English is not very good. I think the option I was referring to was "Maintain" or "Redirect". Keigosmind (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. A merger discussion can continue on the Talk page. Star Mississippi 00:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alakh Pandey[edit]

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

The subject is not yet solely notable. Should be redirected to Physics Wallah. Macbeejack ☎ 13:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Macbeejack ☎ 13:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Physics Wallah There is a dearth of sources that mention Alakh Pandey outside of the context of Physics Wallah, his company. Sohom (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick glance at some sources, there are many news reports covering his life and activities over the years in various publications, including his biography TV series. Forbes, The Hindu, Entrepreneur, Hindustan Times, Times Of India, Moneycontrol And that was just from a quick database search and Google search. So there's likely more to find for anyone willing to dig deeper.Lehucana (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: *Forbes - 404 page not found. *The Hindu, Entrepreneur - News about his company PhysicsWallah. *Entrepreneur - News about PhisicsWallah. PW becomes India's sixth edtech Unicorn. *Hindustan Times - 404 not found. *Times Of India - It can consider. *Moneycontrol - Again page not found. It is redirecting to https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/ Macbeejack ☎ 05:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He made substantial contributions to Physic Wallah, which have brought him recognition and acclaim. It is evident that the media will naturally focus on his work and contributions, given their significance. Additionally, I have added additional 8 sources and fixed the broken links. Zee News, Jagran Josh, Hindustan, Jansatta, News18, Aaj Tak , News18, Jagran and as mentioned there's likely more to find for anyone willing to dig deeper.Lehucana (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Physics Wallah. Most of the coverage of this individual appears to be in relation to Physics Wallah. Thenightaway (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let it be, don't merge it with Physics Wallah, there is a lot more in the life of Alakh Pandey apart from Physics Wallah, like he got that times award and he did an interview with Padma Shri H.C. Verma and so on. According to the reliability and credibility of Wikipedia, there are enough sources. Do some more research. Let me give you example, Byju Ravindran's article is not merged into Byju's, he has a separate article and his wife also has an article, Divya Gokulnath. I hope you understand what I'm trying to convey, and sorry I'm in mobile 😅 IndicAmsha (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note : This account is specially created on 20 December 2023 to add a 'Keep' vote here. Macbeejack ☎ 17:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is false information. I didn't create this account just to vote. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I'm interested in India-related article editing. IndicAmsha (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several reliable sources about the subject itself and his business, GNG are met here.Pusezo^{(Talk to Pusezo)} 19:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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