< November 10	November 12 >

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pārijāta yoga[edit]

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

Pseudoscience related term without significant coverage in general media. Only has passing mentions. Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Given sources are online dictionaries or books on special topics. Article also violates WP:NFRINGE and WP:PSCI. Only those aspects with coverage outside the astrology sources are notable (see WP:NFRINGE) Venkat TL (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in independent reliable source.Venkat TL (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:NOTDICT is not applicable here. Curbon7 (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly a WP:FRINGE only supported by a few unreliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After doing my due diligence I agree with User:TenPoundHammer that this is WP:FRINGE and does not meet our WP:GNG. Perhaps, if it is lucky, it will get a brief mention in another article related to yoga, but, it doesn't merit its own independent article at this time. Missvain (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A copyright violation investigation has been launched on the articles by the creator at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20211117 Venkat TL (talk) 10:09, 18 November 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Kevon Williams[edit]

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

Minor actress, fails NACTOR and GNG. Only minor TV guest roles, no significant coverage ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One season of The Comeback won't do it. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:24, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Aside from the role previously mentioned, the subject had a recurring part in Days of our Lives and what appears to be a fairly significant role in the film, Abby. She may, therefore, meet WP:NACTOR. (The article claims that she had a recurring role in Passions, too, but that appears to be incorrect.) The lack of sources is troubling, though. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source, but it only contains a passing mention: here. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep She has had roles at in some of the most popular television shows in the U.S., so there probably are more refs out there. But Dflaw is right, this article does need work and if it can't be upgraded, I would support deletion at a future date. It's on the border whether she meets NACTOR. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note - respectfully, are we electing to keep an article because the subject 'may' meet NACTOR? That doesn't seem logical. Also, 'Popstar' was a direct to DVD movie which itself is barely significant. I don't see evidence that she was in a 'major' role either. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ENT isn't met, and there isn't sourcing to meet WP:GNG. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her role on The Comeback (TV series) can be considered significant, but I don't think the Days of Our Lives or Popstar roles is significant considering there's no significant coverage about that roles I could find in WP:BEFORE. Therefore she fails WP:NACTOR, and doesn't have enough coverage to meet GNG either. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akindotun Merino[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Cannot find anything in references or online search that verifies the major claims in this article. Cannot find proof that she has a doctorate or was a dean, vice president, director, department chair. Have checked San Bernadino Valley College, Ashford College (a for-profit bought by Univ of Arizona - no listing there) . Could not find mention of her in JSTOR or Google Scholar or of any academic works she has created. Her JARS Group is a Southern California consulting firm that Googles notes as permanently closed. This article is all smoke and mirrors. Please, I welcome feedback from others who find something substantial that I missed. Rogermx (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the article should state that the sources show that she had an academic position at Argosy University? It's almost as if someone was trying to cover up that fact. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is sourced to primary sources and stuff she wrote. Subject does not meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Princess of Ara 08:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2021 (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. Sandstein 10:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Philip Newell[edit]

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

Article was dePRODed with a promise to find sources that never happened. All the sources for this article is either insufficient to prove notability or is connected to the subject CiphriusKane (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CiphriusKane (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not seeing a ton of reviews for WP:NAUTHOR on a cursory look but he has a Contemporary Authors bio here. They're not super selective so it wouldn't count towards WP:ANYBIO, but a start. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient notability as per WP:N GNG, especially references that are independent of the subject. Coldupnorth (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't demonstrate notability. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing enough significant independent coverage to support WP:BASIC or WP:NAUTHOR. There's some run of the mill praise quotes on his books but that's generally not independent. There's some blogs that review his works but they're generally not reliable. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2021 (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. Sandstein 11:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Ondine Smith[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. An unremarkable career. also doesn't satisfy WP:CREATIVE for her role in filmmaking and storytelling. LibStar (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I changed the search term to "Anita Ondine" (no Smith), because the "Smith" is omitted fairly often. The article needs improvement and better references, but Hollywood Reporter called her a "transmedia guru" and "veteran transmedia producer".^[1] I found a few independent references with information about her life and career.^[2]^[3] HouseOfChange (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Vlessing, Etan (January 18, 2012). "Expert: Canada Primed to Become Major Transmedia Player". Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved November 5, 2021. So says transmedia guru Anita Ondine, the CEO of indie Seize the Media in Toronto this week to deliver a masterclass at Bell Lightbox. The veteran transmedia producer cited the NFB's Highrise mixed media project about vertical living worldwide as an example of an interactive documentary that pushes the boundary in digital storytelling.
^ Rääbus, Carol (May 22, 2016). "Anita Ondine: Transmedia storyteller on Screen Producers Australia's One To Watch list". ABC News Australia. Retrieved November 5, 2021. Ms Ondine grew up in Strahan on Tasmania's west coast and said the Franklin blockade protests of the early 1980s made a big impression on her childhood...Ms Ondine started to make a name for herself in the field of transmedia with Pandemic 1.0 at the Sundance Film Festival in 2011.
^ Romaneki, Neal (May 18, 2012). "Transmedia Next conference evolves in UK". Screen Daily. Retrieved November 5, 2021. Anita Ondine, producer of the original Pandemic short, noted how the Transmedia Next event has evolved in the past years

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best TOOSOON. Aoziwe (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I commented above after finding more sources, but there isn't enough for GNG or NCREATIVE. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 11 November 2021 (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 and redirect to Cardiology. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cardology[edit]

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

It's of course perfectly ok to have articles about pseudoscience. Indeed, informing readers of the actual facts is the primary purpose of Wikipedia. This, however, is a very new article about a very obscure pseudoscience topic (not the same thing as the other kind of playing card reading, Cartomancy apparently) and all of the sources are published by practitioners or adherents of this pseudoscience, as opposed to objective third-party sources. Unsurprisingly, the bulk of the sources are self-published books, but we also have the International Association of Cardology website, which explains that this is actually a quite ancient art, that was developed in Atlantis, kept secret for twenty thousand years by a secret society, and finally revealed to the world by some guy in Chicago decided the time was right in the 1890's.

I mean, whatever, but it appears not to have been the subject of multiple reports in independent reliable sources. It simply does not appear to be a particularly notable practice. Even if it were determined to be notable, this is not the article we should have about it, as it based only on primary sources that believe in this avowed "truly magical" practice. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: It may even pass the threshold as a HOAX. As nom has indicated, it doesn't meet notability for articles about a hoax, either. While it'd be a good first idea to merge it with Cartomancy, there's barely anything to merge that's verifiable. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 06:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cardiology per JLAN. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 21:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Page has no independent (third-party) verifiable sources. N Does not comply with WP:V. Louie (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought this was a definite delete per nom, but this Scholar search has made me think again. It seems that this is a plausible typo for "cardiology" – so plausible that even journals publishing in that field manage to make it. So:

Redirect to cardiology. Note: I did find one other use of this word, in the San Francisco Foghorn, Volume 36 Issue 6, dated 22 October 1948 (bottom of the page, right of centre). I've absolutely no glimmer of an idea what it's supposed to mean there, but it isn't this topic. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Cartomancy? Cardiology is about the heart. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 00:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, WhoAteMyButter, I most certainly do not. I mean cardiology – see the Google Scholar search I linked above, where "cardology" is written but "cardiology" is meant. Closer: I've no objection to a Delete, then redirect close if that better reflects consensus here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Jlan. This is, indeed, a plausible typo for cardiology, i and o being adjacent on a standard keyboard.—S Marshall T/C 23:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I have no objection to it being redirected, but would prefer "delete then recreate as a redirect". This just avoids ambiguity, while also eliminating the possibility of restoring the article by reverting. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Beeblebrox's concerns. It is a plausible typo.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2021 (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. Keep and improve. (non-admin closure) Bobherry Talk Edits 01:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yankalilla Football Club[edit]

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

Very minor amateur football club in a small village Yankalilla, South Australia (Population 427) that plays in a very localised subdistrict against other towns/villages; the local council has around 40,000 people. The book by Peter Lines is self-published. No substantial independent coverage aside from numbers from league rankings and no sporting merit Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sustained long term coverage of the subject. I have not checked these but there are potentially over 9,000 references available here. The significant majority of these will be routine and-or minor and some not relevant, but even if only 1% are good references, there will be more than sufficient to support GNG. Looks like insufficient BEFORE was done. Aoziwe (talk) 10:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At least redirect to Great Southern Football League (South Australia) as an alternative to deletion. Open to a full keep if better sources are found. I have concerns about the nominator's approach to determining notability, see my comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macclesfield Football Club. – Teratix ₵ 12:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve as per comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macclesfield Football Club Screech1616 (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2021 (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. Keep and improve. (non-admin closure) Bobherry Talk Edits 01:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Langhorne Creek Football Club[edit]

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

Very minor amateur football club in a small village Langhorne Creek, South Australia (Population 427) that plays in a very localised subdistrict against other towns/villages; the local council has around 40,000 people. Almost all sources are to a self-published website where you can start an account and upload your team/league's stats. No substantial independent coverage and no sporting merit Bumbubookworm (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sustained long term coverage of the subject. I have not checked these but there are potentially over 4,000 references available here. The significant majority of these will be routine and-or minor and some not relevant, but even if only 1% are good references, there will be more than sufficient to support GNG. Looks like insufficient BEFORE was done. Aoziwe (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At least redirect to Great Southern Football League (South Australia) as an alternative to deletion. Open to a full keep if better sources are found. I have concerns about the nominator's approach to determining notability, see my comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macclesfield Football Club. – Teratix ₵ 12:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - this is one of the most successful Football Clubs in SA in recent years, the population of where it is located is irrelevant as their are notable players (i.e. have articles) currently at the club. Similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macclesfield Football Club Screech1616 (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2021 (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 Dalton Maag. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lexia (typeface)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, I can't find any coverage of this font. Note that this is font is apparently unrelated to Lexia Readable, subject of for example this PC World review, which was previously deleted. Lennart97 (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dalton Maag, where it is mentioned. Basic facts about the typeface are verifiable, but I don't see any in depth reviews that would bring it to GNG. It is a plausible search term, so a reasonable alternative to deletion would be a redirect to Dalton Maag, the foundry where it was created. An alternative would to a redirect to its creator Ron_Carpenter_(designer)#Fonts, but the foundry article seems more informative. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 20:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as above. After 21 years, never became notable by itself. W Nowicki (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

City Colts Cricket Club[edit]

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

Small suburban cricket team in a small town (20,000) playing against other suburban teams in the small town's local league, well below state league-type standard. Insufficient sporting merit. No substantial independent coverage. Search gives just phonebook listings or routine info about upgrades to the local oval. Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is some sustained long term coverage of the subject. I have not checked these but there are potentially over 800 references available here. The significant majority of these will be routine and-or minor and some not relevant, but even if only 1% are good references, there may be sufficient to support GNG. Looks like insufficient BEFORE was done. Aoziwe (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass the WP:NCRIC requirements for Australian club teams as this cricket club does not play at Grade Level. The above 800 hits on Trove are all likely to be passing mentions, such as scorecards, fixture announcements, community events ect. I can't see anything that satisifies wider GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCRIC and as StickyWicket states although there is some sourcing, I don't think there's enough there for a GNG pass. Not seeing a suitable WP:ATD either here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also fails WP:ORG for lack of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Middlebrook[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not meet WP:NBIO. There don’t seem to be additional reliable sources published since this article was last nominated for deletion. A search on Google News finds some sources that aren’t currently in this article that do briefly quote Middlebrook, but I still don’t see them contributing to significant coverage.^[1]^[2]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
"Report: Arab Spring upheaval cost $55bn". BBC News.			Article is about a report by Geopolicity, but only briefly quotes Middlebrook himself.	✘ No
"Peter Middlebrook". www.northumbria.ac.uk.	Alumni profile by alma mater	Primarily self-written interview		✘ No
"Peter Middlebrook: Wandering minstrel on a mission". The National.		? I’m not familiar with this source, and it isn’t discussed at WP:RSP.		? Unknown
"From Bullets to Diplomacy: Securing Peace Between Somalia and Kenya". Horseed Media • Somali News.	Opinion piece by Middlebrook	Opinion piece my subject	?	✘ No
Communications, South Asia Fast Track Sustainability (2018-08-21). "Q&A with Mr. Peter Middlebrook, CEO, Geopolicity on the growth vs. development debate, income inequality, digital disruptions, private sector in devp. & more". South Asia Fast Track Sustainability Communications.	Interview with no secondary commentary	Source is a blog, and interview is largely a primary source		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Politanvm ^talk 21:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

References

^ "'Out of control' piracy set to cost world £9bn by 2015". The Independent. 2011-10-23. Retrieved 2021-11-11.
^ "How to Fight Pirates". The New Yorker. 2013-09-23. Retrieved 2021-11-11.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Politanvm ^talk 21:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Politanvm ^talk 21:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Politanvm ^talk 21:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are largely primary or self-published. Nothing has changed since this was last nominated for deletion. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Politanvm ^talk 17:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the second time: promotional guff. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2021 (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. Fenix down (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Abid Hossain[edit]

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

Footballer ho fails GNG and NFOOTY. Not sure if he even played in his domestic league (I couldn't find any performance data on him), let alone national team. BlameRuiner (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTY. Even if he played in the Bangladeshi league, it isn't a WP:FPL. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY. Behind the moors (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2021 (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roach, Nevada[edit]

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

I don't think this has notability; not a populated place or anywhere notable, just an old railroad siding. wizzito | say hello! 00:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 00:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 00:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a ghost town (see page 22). It had a population of 10 circa 1940. WADDLES 🍁 🎃 01:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have just removed a bunch of junk from the article (like Hometown Locator) and added more relevant content. WADDLES 🍁 🎃 01:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Waddles has demonstrated a 1940 population of 10, this was a populated place. Per WP:GEOLAND, "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." Firsfron of Ronchester 04:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing plenty of sources for Roach, Nevada, and was able to expand the article significantly, including an article in the Goldfield Tribune[1], Reno Evening Gazette,[2][3], the Nevada State Journal, and a marriage license being issued for a couple in Roach[4]. This is a community which was making state news with the amount of zinc and lead being mined and shipped from the area. The amount of ore hauled to Roach broke a record, according to the Goldfield Tribune.

Because of the community's name, it's difficult to sift through the news results, but there appear to be hundreds of results for Roach. Given time, this could become a Featured Article. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it legally recognized, though? –dlthewave ☎ 03:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The population numbers throughout the document are from the 1940 Census. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The census does not confer legal recognition. For example, it includes places without legal recognition (e.g., neighbourhoods, unincorporated towns, and even individual households). The census is only intended to tally people by location, not confer legal recognition on places. It is also not evidence that a locality had a government of any kind, which is typically the acid-test of "legal recognition". FOARP (talk) 12:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GEOLAND, "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG". jp×g 04:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Waddles. I also see some stuff that got lost over the years: see this previous from 2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roach,_Nevada&oldid=368650490

I'll be adding some of the UP & topo/USGS stuff back in, maybe tomorrow. Pete Tillman (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GEOLAND as a former populated place. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ WP:GEOLAND requires either A) legal recognition or B) significant non-trivial coverage in accordance with GNG; I don't believe that the above !votes are interpreting this guideline correctly. The place lacks legal recognition and the source which has been added simply tells us the origin of the name which isn't the type of in-depth coverage we're looking for. –dlthewave ☎ 02:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm still not seeing much in-depth coverage about Roach itself, but the expanded content at least shows its significance as a shipping point. –dlthewave ☎ 02:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as former populated place, ghost town per census records. Djflem (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dlthewave is correct. The keep !votes are misinterpreting WP:GEOLAND #1 which requires evidence of legal recognition. There is no evidence that this location was ever legally recognised though, e.g., incorporation. Wikipedia is not a directory of every place ever described in any source as populated. WP:NOT, which is core policy and above WP:GEOLAND which is only a guideline (and also incidentally above WP:5P, which is essay-level), specifically states that Wikipedia is not a directory, yet this is essentially a directory listing. For the avoidance of doubt, neither of the references cited are significant coverage, so WP:GNG is also not passed. See WP:NOTGAZETTEER for further explanation of the reasoning here. FOARP (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Retention would be consistent with consensus as described in Wikipedia:PLACEOUTCOMES and the Wikipedia features of a gazetteer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 18:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:PLACEOUTCOMES does not mention anything about railway sidings. "[F]eatures of ... gazetteers", comes from WP:5P (an essay, not intended to be a guideline or policy) and does not extend to things that Wikipedia is resolutely NOT (i.e., being a directory/dictionary). And, come on, a place with no legal recognition (which is required by WP:GEOLAND #1), no government, no nothing, no evidence of an actual community, with a population of 10? If that, a number of people who might well have lived in a single building, is going to be our definition of a "community", then my house (which is also in my national census) is also worthy of a Wikipedia article. FOARP (talk) 09:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there were several reliable sources talking about the historical relevance of your house, specifically, as an inhabited area relevant to mining in the early 20th century, I think it would be obviously notable. jp×g 04:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if it is presumed to be notable per GEOLAND, this presumption is rebuttable, and it is being rebutted now that we're actually looking at the sources. A line in a census is not a sufficient basis for an article (WP:GNG, WP:V). Sandstein 15:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; significant expansion since nomination warrants a re-examination of general notability. To me, this seems quite sufficient; there are now nine sources. Sure, one of them is from GNIS and one is from mindat, but the rest are obviously about the history of Roach as an inhabited place. jp×g 04:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP per User:JPxG above. These adds seem to me to answer the questions raised re Roach's Notability. It's now an above-average article on a ghost town. Speaking as an editor who has a long-standing interest in such places. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC) struck double vote Avilich (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow engagement with sources presented by Firsfron.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly notable ex-mining town. YttriumShrew (talk)
Leaning keep The article has been improved, it's not much, but still technically a settlement with things to be said about it. Probably just about enough to meet notability. Avilich (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nieri T. Flores[edit]

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

BLP of a mayor of a town of 52,000 people. Does not pass WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors aren't presumptively notable under NPOL, and Flores in particular doesn't seem to have attracted the sort of significant coverage in reliable sources necessary to meet the WP:GNG. (There are a few passing mentions, but that's about it.) I suppose one could argue for a redirect to the town's article, but that seems unnecessary since she isn't mentioned outside of the infobox. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL per nom. People running for local post aren't considered notable under NPOL IMV, unless they're notable in other aspects. SBKSPP (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears that no significant coverage exists. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 05:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:46, 14 November 2021 (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. After the discounting the IPs and WP:SPAs with their walls of text, there is consensus that this is not a notable subject. Sandstein 11:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen Free Press[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Promotional article on web aggregator with no evidence of notability under WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:WEBCRIT, WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. Various clear non-RSes in the original (YouTube etc) were removed. Of what remains, Axios is the closest to an RS here; Washington Examiner is questionable per WP:RSP; Mediaite is a passing mention. I went looking for other sources in a basic WP:BEFORE, and found only passing mentions in fringe publications. Asking on the talk page a week ago did not elicit any better coverage (the article creator names several clear non-RSes on the talk page as the best coverage available). There's no evidence this site is noteworthy in any regard. David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article reads like a promotional blurb, rather than one that establishes why this site is notable.TH1980 (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very simply, this is why Citizen Free Press is notable -- it gets MORE U.S. monthly pageviews than any other conservative website in the United States, according to Similar Web.

In and of itself, that makes the site notable. More U.S. monthly pageviews than Breitbart, Zero Hedge and Gateway Pundit. Also more U.S. monthly pageviews than Politico, WSJ, ABC News, NBC News, The Hill and many other sites, all of which have Wikipedia pages. And no one is attempting to delete those pages.

A reporter from the Washington Examiner said this about Citizen Free Press when an attempt was made to delete the Wikipedia page last week.

"Citizen Free Press is absolutely notable and watched by millions, including several Washington news people and lawmakers. Its traffic is amazing, better than Huffington Post, Politico, WSJ, NBC, CBS etc. What's more they offer the most free-wheeling comment section in the media and it's constantly policed by the editor. As for the Washington Examiner website and weekly print magazine, I've been a reporter there (at Washington Examiner) for years and we employ dozens of the best columnists and reporters and editors who have come from CNN, U.S. News and elsewhere. To suggest that the Washington Examiner isn't respected is silly. Just read the Wiki page on us. And we have written about Citizen Free Press, you bet, because it matters."

The main argument for deletion seems to be that there haven't been enough articles written about Citizen Free Press. This is untrue. Two separate profiles in Washington Examiner. The site is relatively new. Give it some time and there will be several more articles written about its explosive traffic growth. 124 million U.S. pageviews in October. That is a huge number and shows how 'notable' the site has become.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:200:787:844A:592F:4ED1:4451 (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC) — 2601:801:200:787:844A:592F:4ED1:4451 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Web hits aren't counted for Wikipedia notability - they're too easy to fake. WP:WEBCRIT is pretty clear: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Do you have independent reliable sources covering Citizen Free Press? It sounds like you don't - David Gerard (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:N or WP:NCORP. I can only find WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in independent and reliable secondary sources, and I would expect significantly more coverage for a corporation. At best it's WP:TOOSOON. I don't see any redirect targets either. If anyone scrounges up sources or discovers an appropriate redirect target then ping me. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further inspection I've realized this is less of a news company and more of a news feed so WP:NCORP probably isn't applicable, but I still don't think it passes WP:N or WP:WEB. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE -- To answer Tipsy Elephant -- The site is a populist news website that posts approximately 100 stories per day. Of that 100, usually about 80 stories are written by the CFP team. The other 20 stories are direct outbound links to other websites, like Drudge. CFP is the largest open-platform anonymous news website for commenting. The site gets approximately 20,000 reader comments per day. It's very simplistic and has ZERO advertising.

There is no denying its size. CFP traffic is directly measured by Alexa and Similar Web.

https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/citizenfreepress.com

When CFP links to a story on another website, such as Mediaite, it can drive upwards of 200,000 readers to that link. That is why Mediaite mentioned it favorable alongside Drudge. Mediatie editors know firsthand how much traffic a link on CFP can drive.

The original Wikipedia listing for CFP was much longer and more complete. All of the links were approved by multiple Wikiepedia editors, who had absolutely no objections. The page was solid for several months. Then David Gerard stumbled across the page and gutted it, removing 5 of the 8 sources. Even Governor Ron DeSantis, whether you like him or not, mentioned CFP first as his news source, and that was deleted.

Here is the link to the page as it stood after it was approved, and before David's deletions.

[Free Press -- Original Wikipedia Page]

The sources that are being discounted and have been removed from the original Wikipedia entry, include the Washington Examiner, Just The News, and PJ Media, and all three of those sites are approved by Google News. So they are not far right wing sites by any means. Citizen Free Press stories are also indexed by Google News. You can see them at this link.

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acitizenfreepress.com&biw=1120&bih=605&tbm=nws&sxsrf=AOaemvJ_TiipmFPsm_gzR_zNMJhZjxFRGQ%3A1637129511969&ei=J52UYd_QOsas0PEP04OnuA4&oq=site%3Acitizenfreepress.com&gs_l=psy-ab.3...2230.9697.0.9950.27.26.1.0.0.0.154.2419.19j6.25.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.6.616...0i273k1j0i67k1j0i512i433k1j0i512i433i131k1j0i512k1j0i433i67k1j0i433k1.0.ZZldRwlQLLc

I propose that the CFP wiki page be restored to its original version, which was approved by multiple Wikipedia editors.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:200:787:50ff:816f:12dd:c3ed (talk) — 2601:801:200:787:50ff:816f:12dd:c3ed (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It was full of sources that clearly failed WP:RS. I ask you again: bring sources that meet WP:RS. At the moment you're just posting multiple paragraphs of repeating the same claims that don't meet WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article was reviewed at AfC by JavaHurricane and DGG. JavaHurricane declined the draft with the comment "Source no. 2 is an interview, i.e. not independent of the subject. Third source is a mention and not significant coverage. I'm not sure if 4 is a reliable source. 5 again a mention in a listing. 6 a single mention. Notability is established by significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject". Right after the draft was declined it appears that DGG accepted the draft. Was there a particular reason why you accepted the draft DGG? Which sources do you believe demonstrate that the subject passes WP:N, WP:WEB, or WP:NCORP? TipsyElephant (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept at AfC only when I think something is clearly notable, I accept when I think it has a decent chance of notability at AfD. Establishing notability for newspapers and similar publications is difficult even for important ones, and we are usually quite flexible--it's important that we have an article for sources that might be used in a WP article so people can judge what they are. . Therefore, I tend to be very inclusive for new publications of minority and small groups. Others will either agree, or not. DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Doesn't WP:NCORP apply to news companies and wouldn't that require a stricter judgment of notability rather than a more flexible one? Also, would you mind linking to the specific sources you believe demonstrate notability? TipsyElephant (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

we make the rules; we make the itnerpretations and the exceptions. We have always been very inclusive for newspapers, broadcast stations, and publishers. I think that's a reasonable interpretation, considering our mission. DGG ( talk ) 07:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. on the basis of my argument that even this minimal sourcing is eenough in the subject. DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing mentions and questionable sources don't add up to satisfying WP:NORG. I wouldn't object in principle to a redirect, if an appropriate target were identified, but a stand-alone article just isn't warranted. In the past, I've been sympathetic to arguments like "having a page about a website helps our readers contextualize any citations to it". But this is a news aggregator which we'd have no reason to cite, even if it didn't wear its political bias on its sleeve. So, that genre of argument just doesn't apply here. XOR'easter (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I’ve expressed before, I believe the site meets notability standards. I'm not sure how it can be argued that the site doesn't meet notability standards when accounting for the top web traffic measuring analysis companies which all find Citizen Free Press among the most trafficked news websites in the world. Citizen Free Press has been profiled by several reputable news websites and name dropped by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. The site, its traffic, and its community have done nothing but grow in size over the past year. It is clear that one editor in particular has made it his personal mission to deface what I believe was a fair and accurate representation of a major player in the conservative news business. Not sure how it is resolved but frustrated by the state of the page as is and would like to see it revolved in a more balanced manner which recognizes the size and scope of the site while fairly describing its essential nature. ClearPill ( talk ) 12:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClearPill11 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Traffic numbers don't imply notability. Plain and simple. XOR'easter (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per XOR'easter this "keep" is not in line with guidance and policy. Do you, or do you not, have clear WP:RSes which would demonstrate notability under WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:WEBCRIT, WP:GNG or any other notability guideline? That's all I ask - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David, under your logic, hundreds of Wikipedia pages for news websites/media companies would have to be removed. News websites aren't newsworthy or notable for any other reason than their size and web traffic.

Why is Zero Hedge notable? Because it gets a lot of traffic.

Why is Gateway Pundit notable? Because it gets a lot of traffic.

Why is Politico notable? Because it gets a lot of traffic.

I could go on and on.

When a news website gets 128 million pageviews per month as CFP does, it is automatically notable.

Again, the only notable factor of any news website, it traffic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:200:787:5992:A023:4348:5CA2 (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the only notable factor of any news website, is traffic.

These are the October traffic numbers for the top 12 U.S. Media Websites

NYT 607 Million

DRUDGE 562 Million

WASH POST 279 Million

NY POST 173 Million

CITIZEN FREE PRESS 128 Million

HUFF POST 112 Million

POLITICO 107 Million

NBC MSNBC 76 Million

THE HILL 72 Million

ZERO HEDGE 64 Million

CBS NEWS 58 Million

LA TIMES 49 Million

The Citizen Free Press Wikipedia absolutely should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:200:787:5992:a023:4348:5ca2 (talk) — 2601:801:200:787:5992:a023:4348:5ca2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please read WP:SIGNATURE and WP:GTD before making further comments. I would also strongly recommend reading WP:BLUDGEON and WP:AFDFORMAT. I would also suggest that you refrain from making any further accusations against the nominator and instead WP:AGF. I would also strongly recommend reading WP:N and WP:WEB before making further comments about web traffic being the only indicator of notability on Wikipedia. Similarly, pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFF does not help your case, especially when Wikipedia pages like Politico clearly have significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources (i.e. multiple sources from the NYT, The Guardian, The Washington Post, CNN, etc. dedicated specifically to discussing Politico). TipsyElephant (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2021 (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. Sandstein 09:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Bakeries[edit]

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

May not pass WP:GNG, and indicative that the article is written with a promotional slant. Article was draftified before for incubation but was moved back by author without improvements made. Assessment of sources below.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.sunshine.com.sg/history/	primary source	? primary source		✘ No
http://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/data/pdfdoc/yct19930218s.pdf		~ transcript of speech given during opening		~ Partial
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/singapore-ban-pho-partially-hydrogenated-oils-transfat-margarine-891211			Nothing in the source about the company. Just a general news about the ban.	✘ No
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/supermarkets-ban-food-hydrogenated-oil-fat-2020-1321611			a line about the number of products by company not containing PHO, whilst article is about the upcoming ban of PHO products in general.	✘ No
https://mustsharenews.com/sunshine-bakeries-buns/			? Promotional content.	? Unknown
https://www.todayonline.com/8days/eatanddrink/newsandopening/sunshines-new-d24-durian-cream-bun-taste-test-nice-or-not			? Food review	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

– robertsky (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft, I say draft the article again and strictly inform the editor not to undraft it unless more sources can be found. But it may be hard considering not many people tend to report on bakeries. 115.78.92.34 (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Source analysis is excellent. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 18:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Exists, yes, but not notable enough, and barring some major event is unlikely to become notable in the near future. Great analysis by Robertsky. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. An argument could be made that the review from Today counts—it's the second largest newspaper in Singapore, has an identified author, and is just barely long enough to be plausibly SIGCOV—but it's not enough. Looking for other sources, there's this, which seemed promising from the title: Williams, Ann (7 February 2017). "Sunshine bread maker, Food Junction owner Auric Pacific gets takeover offer from Riady family". The Straits Times. Retrieved 13 November 2021. However, it only actually mentions Sunshine once and is instead about the parent company, Auric Pacific Group (not sure if that's notable). Google Books search turns up only what appears to be phonebook directory listings. With that WP:BEFORE exhausted, I don't see much hope for this. I'm open to draftifying, though, as the oldest bakery chain in Singapore (founded in 1930) seems like a topic of enough significance that it could someday be notable. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a Chinese article by Singapore's Chinese newspaper, Lianhe Zaobao, on brands which have their products Made in Singapore. While the article is brief, it includes a video produced by the newspaper The series is located here about 10 brands, inclusive of Sunshine Bakeries. This will probably qualify as another source for GNG. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The last 2 sources in the table seem reliable. And so are the ones idicated above. I also found a few more reliable sources which talk about the company (and some of its activities): [5], [6] and [7]. Though the article needs some clean-up by removing anything promotional, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note: I have semi-protected this AfD for a week because of persistent disruption by an LTA – I also note that I have blocked 115.78.92.34, who !voted above, as a proxy; probably the same person responsible for the other disruption. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. In addition to the copyvio found by Vanamonde, I checked the Meyer-Dinkgräfe source and the Ray & Ray source both of which were copy-pasted extensively. These were all inserted in the first edit, and there seems to be no non-infringing revision to revert to. As such I deleted the as an unambiguous copyright violation. — Wug·a·po·des 22:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pashyanti[edit]

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

A word from a language without significant coverage in general media. Only has passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG. Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Given sources are online dictionaries or books on special topics. Article also violates WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. Venkat TL (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:NFRINGE and WP:PSCI are not applicable here. Curbon7 (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On its face, the article is neither a dictionary definition nor a pseudo-science topic. It treats a concept in Hindu philosophy. That is not a philosophy I am personally well versed in, but the article appears to be properly sourced and otherwise in good order. Cnilep (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first line sourced to a Sanskrit dictionary, from the second para the article gets into unsourced and unscientific gibberish like "semi-cosmic sounds of sacred ash made of burnt dried wood or cow dung". The sources used only provide passing mentions. @Cnilep, on what basis of notability are you voting keep? please provide the WP:THREE sources that you think shows that this topic passes WP:GNG, and I will withdraw my nomination. Venkat TL (talk) 05:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Venkat TL that the article has an encyclopedic tone and could use a rewrite. But that's not justification to delete it. Overall, at a cursory glance, I agree with Cnilep and think the article should stay. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The present state of the article is a different matter and not for AfD to consider. I have nominated the article as the topic fails our notability criteria. Please share the sources Independent of the subject that give significant coverage to the topic. None exist. Venkat TL (talk) 10:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel the sources given, by nine different authors, fail those criteria? Largoplazo (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the table below. Venkat TL (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the table, I agree that it's well referenced. I'm removing my vote. Searching by "Pasyanti" turns out substantially more references, but a new article about Vāk which is all 4 forms of speech would probably make more sense than fixing this one. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment
Source	Problem	WP:GNG
Sanskrit-English Dictionary.	Word not found. Dictionary	✗ Fail
Amit Ray (June 2010). OM Chanting and Meditation. Inner Light Publishers. p. 36.	1 Passing mention in a book on meditation	✗ Fail
Ashok Kumar Datta (August 2013). Praanas, Divine-links and Auras. Strategic Book Publishing. p. 98,99.	1 Passing mention in a book on WP:Fringe theories	✗ Fail
Banani Ray (9 June 2010). Awakening Inner Guru. Inner Light Publishers. pp. 86, 87.	2 Passing mention in a book on WP:Fringe theories	✗ Fail
Helmut Coing. Ius Commune. Vittorio Kloster mann. pp. 72, 73.	book on WP:Fringe theories	✗ Fail
Daniel Meyer (March 2005). Approaches to acting: Past and Present. p. 72,73.	book on acting. found in section on WP:Fringe theories	✗ Fail
William S.Haney (2006). Cyberculture, Cyborgs and Science Fiction. Rodopi. p. 51,122.	found in section on WP:Fringe theories	✗ Fail
Pramod Bharati (26 March 2014). The Paradise Never Lost. diamond Pocket Books. p. 44.	3 Passing mention in a book on WP:Fringe theories	✗ Fail
William S.Haney (May 1999). Culture and Consciousness. Bucknell University Press. p. 80.	1 Passing mention in a book on WP:Fringe theories	✗ Fail
Tantric Yoga and the Goddesses. Motilal Banarsidass. 1999. p. 55,79.	1 Passing mention in a book on WP:Fringe theories	✗ Fail
S.S.Goswami (May 1999). Layayoga. Inner Traditions.	1 Passing mention in a book on WP:Fringe theories	✗ Fail

Delete, possibly speedy delete, and start over. Possibly a viable article, but at the moment entirely violates WP:NOR, as it lists widely varying definitions of the same topic with no indication that they have been treated by reliable sources as a cohesive whole. The one source I checked, the Haney source [8], had been copied from verbatim: if that's true for others, speedy deletion is applicable. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:01, 15 November 2021 (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. Sandstein 09:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet Exchange[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An earlier article on a firm named Prophet Exchange, which appears to have been competing with Betfair in the UK, was deleted in 2005. The present article appears to be about an unrelated firm which commenced in 2018. Regarding the article on the present company, it is describing the management recruitment, partnerships, the fundraising and the intended product proposition - announcement-based coverage which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches also find this 2019 item, which is almost entirely a direct-quotation interview with the founder, but I am not seeing evidence that notability has been attained. AllyD (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cited, now, five articles on Prophet Exchange's page. In all five, Prophet Exchange is addressed directly and is the primary topic of the article. This is should be enough for significant coverage to be achieved. Each article is independent of one another and the publications are not subsidiaries of Prophet exchange or each other. Furthermore while maybe not the most famous publications, all five have strong reputations with no mentions of any improprieties in their reporting. None have been accused of publishing false information. Also, the authors have multiple published articles on a variety of topics besides Prophet Exchange. Anickel25 (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

businesswire.com is not an independent, reliable source Vexations (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article in the floridanewstimes is not original reporting, it cites as its source https://sbcamericas.com/2021/10/12/prophet-ready-to-exchange-the-love-as-prophetexchange-prepares-for-launch/ which starts with "Peer-to-peer US sports betting exchange Prophet has announced ..." that's a barely rewritten press release. Almost identical text appears in https://gamingamerica.com/news/2870/preregistration-begins-for-prophets-peertopeer-betting-exchange Vexations (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet Exchange announced a partnership with Victor Cruz today. He is a former New York Giant with a large social media following. He tweeted about the company: https://twitter.com/TeamVic?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor. This should meet the WP:ORG requirement. Anickel25(talk) 8:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and announcing a commercial deal, including sponsorship, falls under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:ORG Last press release makes six independent sources that have written about Prophet Exchange. This should satisfy the WP:SIGCOV requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.148.242.83 (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@104.148.242.83:, press releases are not independent sources. AllyD (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened up an SPI related to User:Anickel25 and User:104.148.242.83. I'm not sure there is smoking-gun proof, but I have concerns. Both users have been notified. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anickel25. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now I've found off-wiki evidence that User:Anickel25 is a paid by Prophet Exchange to edit Wikipedia. Opening up a COI investigation -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need. Those are both my accounts. I forgot to login on my work computer. This is my first time creating a page from scratch and it has been awhile since I've edited a page, so i'm not used to the syntax.Anickel25(talk) 17:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to go to the Sockpuppet investigation page and explain yourself there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Anickel25 . Also, I believe you are paid by Prophet Exchange. If you are, you need to follow the Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure rules. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 22:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read your user page. The sockpuppet investigation notice and paid editing notice there will provide useful information. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. Coverage in not indepth, mainly press release type sources. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom and the above delete voter.Brayan ocaner (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2021 (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. And merge with Draft:Matrix unit. Sandstein 10:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix unit[edit]

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

This article does not cite any sources. It has been this way since it was created in 2004, and still is when it was last editted in 2021. I cannot find a source on the Internet. If there is a source, this concept must be obscure any way, so that a source can't be found online. Mojoline (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I don't think there is a notable concept that has to do with what this page is talking about. The three mainspace pages that link here appear to do so in error. Danstronger (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edit -- Delete It's a mathematical concept. It seems it will be found in lots of textbooks. Here's one example[9]. IMO the page needs sourcing, not deletion. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bob drobbs: That's a link to an Amazon page. Do you have a copy of the book? If so, can you provide a brief synopsis of what material it contains on this topic? (It seems more likely to me that you just scraped this from a search engine result.) --JBL (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JayBeeEll: You should be able to read the text at that amazon link. However, upon looking further it seems that "Matrix Unit" has no relation to "Unit Matrix". I concede that matrix unit seems to be a concept in graduate level mathematics that's obscure enough, that it doesn't belong here. Changed vote. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this seems to be a legitimate, albeit obscure, mathematical concept. It's covered in Fundamentals of the Theory of Operator Algebra by Kadison & Ringrose and referenced as a concept in Theory of Operator Algebras III by Takesaki. Sources not being easily found online are not a reason for lack of notability per WP:OFFLINE. There seems to be a fair amount of mention of this within Operator Algebra books; however, unsure if that confers any sort of notability. Also, to be perfectly honestly, unclear if it is the same topic discussed in the article. It seems to be but I cannot definitively say. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 20:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like the word as used by Takesaki is very likely the same concept as the topic of this article. --JBL (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. I think Takesaki is talking about matrices that are zero everywhere except one entry that equals 1 (" ${\displaystyle E_{ij))$ "). (As opposed to this page which appears to be talking about the matrix shape). The ${\displaystyle E_{ij))$ definition is supported by [10] and it is what the wikipedia pages linking here were expecting to find. If this page survives, I think it should be changed to be about that concept. Danstronger (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A total rewrite from scratch, based on what sources say, about a different topic, seems like a very reasonable alternative to deletion. But if no one has immediate interest in writing that page, I don't think this page should remain up in it's current form. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Danstronger: I don't think it's as different as you say: the multiplication rule for square matrices with a single 1 is essentially the same as the rule for when matrices of two different shapes can multiply. --JBL (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JayBeeEll: Yeah, that's true, the multiplicative structure is the same between the two concepts. Danstronger (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the concept seems fine, and should be sourced and not deleted if possible, and rewritten if necessary. I thought there weren't any sources based on my not-at-all-extensive search; for that I apologize. One of the sources given here, Lectures on Modules and Rings by T. Y. Lam, is the original source of the PlanetMath page. Lectures on Modules and Rings give a definition^[1]: a set of matrices ${\displaystyle \{e_{i,j}\))$ is a set of matrix units such that ${\displaystyle e_{i,j}e_{l,k}=\delta _{j,l}e_{i,k))$ ; however, this definition seems to refer to general sets of matrix units while the so-called standard matrix units are just a specific one of them (similar to how the standard basis of a Euclidean vector space is just one of many bases). Except the PlanetMath page and Lectures on Modules and Rings, all other sources use matrix units as though it is common knowledge in the field and give no definitions. Although I hardly understand any of what was talked about in the sources, I am pretty confident that they all refer to the same concept given in the PlanetMath page and Lectures on Modules and Rings. As to why the wiki entry is about a whole other concept, I suspect it is because the common matrix unit can be applied to present the wiki entry matrix unit: if we interpret a common matrix unit ${\displaystyle E_{i,j))$ as a wiki entry matrix unit $(i,j)$ , then the multilication checks out. Mojoline (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created a stubby Draft:Matrix unit based on what seems to be the standard definition. I suggest we switch the page to this version if we keep the page. Between deleting and switching to this version, I lean slightly towards switching. Hopefully there is more to say about these matrices and someone will add it at some point. I have struck my "delete" accordingly. Danstronger (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making the draft! Works for me. I also struck out my delete. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge Draft:Matrix unit into Matrix unit: So in terms of an AfD resolution, the position above seems to be either:
1. Delete and then move Draft:Matrix unit to Matrix unit (if the history should not be preserved)
2. Merge Draft:Matrix unit into Matrix unit (effectively replacing it, but preserving the history)

~~Since it's a completely new article on a different topic and preserving none of the original content, I don't see why the history would need to be preserved. So delete and then move?~~ If you look closely at the part after "Another notation [...]", this original article is actually about what is described at Draft:Matrix unit. The connection of the second part of the original article to the first part of the article (essentially about matrices over singleton sets) seems to be unreferenced for now, but the rest is about integer-valued matrices with 1 at one entry and 0s at all other entries. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC); updated — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by merging Draft:Matrix unit into Matrix unit to preserve history. Thank you all for your work on this. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 18:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Non-administrator comment) History Merge per above. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option #2: Keep, use draft text, preserve history Thanks for the work. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Draft:Matrix unit to this title. I agree with the above proposal to replace the content and perform the necessary history merge. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lam, Tsit-Yuen. Lectures on Modules and Rings (1 ed.). Springer, New York, NY. p. 461. ISBN 978-1-4612-0525-8. Retrieved 12 November 2021.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keren Elazari[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. There are no awards or any discussion of her significance, no interviews even that I can locate (there might have been a blog at Haaretz but I can't access it even in IA and google results for "A Day in the Life of Keren Elazari" produce just the Wikipedia entry so it hardly inspires confidence). All we have is the fact that she published two articles in larger outlets (Scientific American and WIRED) and gave one TED talk. Her academic work on GScholar shows citations in single digit, so it is not particularly impactful, so no NPROF save here. Our article also claims she is a co-author of one book (Women in Tech) but our article on said book does not list any co-authors (nor does a search for the book at WorldCat and such; although a glance on the cover does reveal she was one of several contributors, probably an author of a chapter or such). I am afraid that's not enough for a Wikipedia page. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A quick search indicates that she's regularly referred to as an expert on matters of internet security. Here's one example[11]. As such, it seems very useful to have a wiki page explaining who she is. She's also listed as a topic on google news[12]. If one looks through that list, at least one or two additional RS references seem to come up. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Our policy is, however, WP:NOTABILITY not WP:ITSUSEFUL. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe go back and re-read WP:ITSUSEFUL, because it seems explicit that "usefulness" is part of deciding if a page should stay: "...you need to say why the article is useful or useless." The page might be borderline WP:GNG, but borderline GNG, plus useful, seems like more than enough reason to not delete this article. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have just done some work to properly cite and clean up the article, and there are sources covering her in depth (MIT Technology Review podcast, CBC.ca) as well as abundant briefer mentions describing her as a "cybersecurity expert" in publications including the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, etc. As for Piotr's comment about interviews, I have found many: Haaretz, TED Blog, MIT Technology Review, Forbes Israel, CNN (ProQuest 1796066799), etc. I'm continuing to add to it now but I think the GNG threshold has been met here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is the CBC source about her? [13]? She is just interviewed to give some opinions about stuff. I still don't think we have any SiGCOV about her. Yes, she is mentioned here and there as an expert, but does it mean she passes NBIO? I am still doubtful. Who calls her significant for the field, where are awards, other recognition beyond some media requests for her to comment on stuff? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
She is pretty much consistently described as an expert in the field, which I think is a pointer to her significance. I'm suggesting here that she meets the GNG, by the way, not NPROF. I'm not sure what you mean about the CBC source—the whole thing is about her. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, the CBC article is about good vs bad hackers and just quotes her as the main source. What does it say about her outside briefly summarizing who she is and treating her as an expert? Not all experts are notable. To demonstrate she is one we need reliable SIGCOV about her. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely about her and her talk at the Halifax conference, it dives a bit into the content of her talk (the portion about bug bounties), it talks about her early inspiration for getting into the field, etc. It's hardly a passing mention. To be clear, I'm not arguing that this one article is the sole source indicating notability, but it is one of several that discuss her in detail. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a separate note, citation #4 (the Forbes Israel story) was the cover story: [14]. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High-quality sources establish notability. Gamaliel (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequately sourced to get over the GNG bar. XOR'easter (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think she is fairly notable based on her appearance at the Forbes article and her interview at the MIT Technology Review which is editorially independent.Eesan1969 (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2021 (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 diplomatic missions of the United States#Asia. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of the United States, Lahore[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Embassies are not inherently notable, consulates even less so. All this article does is confirm it exists with a single source. LibStar (talk) 05:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can’t see what would make this particular consulate notable.Mccapra (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems like this could have just been WP:BOLDLY redirected to List of diplomatic missions of the United States#Asia, no? TompaDompa (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't usually get more than 6 pageviews per day; recently skyrocketed probably because of deletion nomination. Not sure this merits its own article... Dswitz10734 (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of the United States. Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Better to redirect than outright delete. 115.78.92.34 (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ngrewal. Mccapra (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2021 (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. With socks being struck, it seems clear that there is consensus to delete amongst editors in good standing. No significant sources presented in nearly three weeks of discussion. Happy to close this as delete now with no realistic chance of s change in consensus. Fenix down (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jasem Soltani[edit]

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

Futsal player who fails GNG, NFOOTY and NSPORTS. Sources coverage is typical sports career routine and then death from Covid, which isn't notable either. BlameRuiner (talk) 07:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be enough coverage of his death to meet WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the multiple references for his death, only one is even remotely significant enough to contribute to GNG, and even that relies almost entirely on primary, non-independent quotes from people who knew him rather than independent analysis by a secondary party. Even if there was more coverage, deaths count towards BLP1E in the absence of later, extended discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the footballer's input is remarkable since his work in the sports world is correctly narrated supported by reliable and independent sources. Nasty bits (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Struck sock JoelleJay (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with JoelleJay. Fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication that the subject meets GNG.--Alireza Khabib (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Joelle's assessment of available sourcing Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:08, 16 November 2021 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 Kerala Premier League[edit]

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

~~Doesn't meet with WP:GNG. _from,Orbit Wharf ^💬^|^📝 04:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)~~ struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. _from,Orbit Wharf ^💬^|^📝 04:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _from,Orbit Wharf ^💬^|^📝 04:44, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: KFA announced about the new season two days back (see KFA's social media pages). There is also an independent article for every KPL seasons. So, I think it is okay to keep this article in the mainspace because at somepoint, the season will have it's own article. Ken Tony ^{Shall we discuss?} 16:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drafrify as per WP:TOOSOON: No evidence of notability presently. But we are having article for every season of KPL. New season will begin soon and this wil become notable. The Footballean (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per The Footballean. Also seems to be incomplete with some broken links. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as qualifiers have started and that should be enough to confer notability onto the season itself. It's definitely bordering on WP:TOOSOON and likely was when nominated, but since the qualifier group stage has started since the time the article was nominated and now that could confer notability.snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 17:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Likely TOOSOON as per The Footballean and REDMAN 2019, but shows signs of potential improvement and future notability. Likely will merit its own article at some stage, just not now. Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 10:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC) Moved to Keep.[reply]
Keep - nominated by sockpuppet whose MO is nominating articles for deletion, with no thought to their notability. Season has now started. Articles exist for previous seasons. Not sure why this wasn't procedurally kept rather than relisted on Hallowe'en. Nfitz (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nfitz. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per snood1205. It is now more relevant than when it was originally nominated for deletion. Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 01:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per snood1205 and Nfitz.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no longer too soon. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:30, 17 November 2021 (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chamroeun Vichea High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and is promotional in tone. _signed,Iflaq ^(talk) 13:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. _signed,Iflaq ^(talk) 13:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:46, 11 November 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmi sthiti[edit]

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

Lack of coverage in general media. Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and WP:GNG. Given sources are passing mentions. Venkat TL (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A copyright violation investigation has been launched on the articles by the creator at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20211117 and the creator has now been blocked. Venkat TL (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Religious advocacy: "Brahmi sthiti or spiritual situation is the way of the spiritual or godly life; it is liberation from material bondage leading to the kingdom of God". Needs WP:TNT to allow a NPOV recreation. Sandstein 10:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, via WP:TNT, per Sandstein. It seems like a very poorly translated version of some proselytizing material, I can't make heads or tails enough to look for notability on the subject. Ifnord (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2021 (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. Consensus is to keep this article and improve it through the regular process. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of areas of mathematics[edit]

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

WP:Indiscriminate: This is a long indiscriminate list of Wikipedia articles that cannot be useful in any way, as it is much easier to search directly an article than to search its entry in the list. Moreover the areas of mathematics are confusingly presented as independent areas, without any indication on their relationships (Wikipedia categorization and Mathematics Subject Classification are thus much more useful). D.Lazard (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That the current selection is arbitrary does not entail that the criterion for inclusion is difficult to fix: there are plenty of mathematics classifications schemes, and we could either fix a glossary to one or contrive a policy that is based on some whitelist of several of them. I think this reason can be discounted. The other part of the rationale is that the glossary is not useful: I can see that this might be the case, but in principle, having a wider choice of overviews of our content could be good. The question for this AfD, to my mind, should be whether this glossary can be turned into something that is an asset without much work. I haven't formed an opinion, but I generally lean inclusionist if in doubt, and I don't find the case so far presented at all convincing. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tend to agree that the lack of explicit inclusion criteria is a fixable problem in this case. Right now it's kind of at an awkward place in between the first and second levels of the MSC, but perhaps that awkwardness is not fatal. As to whether the list is useful, it could be at least interesting to see in one place the many different topics that are all called "computational" something, or "arithmetic" something, or "geometric" something, etc. In other words, the fact that the terminology doesn't always fit the conceptual relationships is itself a curiosity. XOR'easter (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the MOS Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Glossaries#What_to_include, the basic inclusion criteria are "Include only specialized terms specific to or having a special meaning within the subject of the glossary. All entries must be verifiable with reliable sources, just like regular article content." Definitions should be brief and descriptive, not full dictionary entries. From my browsing, the glossary entries largely fit those criteria. There are some red-linked entries that could be deleted, but that is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Regarding the WP:Indiscriminate criticism, what is and is not jargon (or an area of mathematics) does not have a universal objective criterion agreed upon by everyone. Nonetheless, reasonable editors can come to consensus on what terms/areas should and should not be included and disputes can be discussed on the Talk page. Browsing the history, there are no flamefests on the Talk page and the page history is mostly that of uncontroversial incremental additions. It seems the consensus process is working for this glossary. If the criticism is that "glossaries are useless on Wikipedia", that is a broader issue that should be addressed in another venue. The article does need a lead and linking area classification schemes like MSC is a great idea. Hence I think the glossary is fine, with no insurmountable problems, and should be kept. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 18:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the bold items that were redlinks, on the write the article first philosophy, and I wrote a lede sentence. XOR'easter (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps a fixer-upper, but not irretrievably broken. XOR'easter (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2021 (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, nominator blocked as a sock and no one else argued for deletion (WP:SKCRIT#4). (non-admin closure) Elli (talk | contribs) 01:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alfie Lorenzo[edit]

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

Article has only a single sources, and it seems that the available sources only mentions about his death/funeral. VladimirBoys (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG per WP:NEXIST based on these sources 1 2 3. Obituary articles are also good for indicating notability, as they typically describe details of the person's entire life. FOARP (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2021 (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. Nominator blocked as a sock and no one else argued for deletion (WP:SKCRIT#4). (non-admin closure) —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soxie Topacio[edit]

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

Article has only a single sources, and it seems that the available sources only mentions about his death. VladimirBoys (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@VladimirBoys:, next time, actually do what is said in WP:BEFORE and stop PROD-ing, CSD-ing and AFD-ing Filipino entertainment people who have nominated for a FAMAS Award, so that you won't waste our and your time? Howard the Duck (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per criterion G11. XOR'easter (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Pulock Deb Roy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Too soon, sources are promotional. Mvqr (talk) 13:04, 11 November 2021 (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 FK ŽAK Kikinda. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium FK ŽAK[edit]

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

Neighborhood minor league sports stadium that has been unsourced for over 9 years, no reliable sources found other than routine sports coverage and casual mentions. Attempt to redirect reverted by a single editor who pointily reverted numerous unsourced articles from being redirected to their associated club articles, following a flap at RfD -- and perhaps one should take note that the editor in question, with only a handful of edits, has a user name identical to the stadium involved. [15]. Ravenswing 12:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current tier of a club is irrelevant. This stadium was used for Yugoslav First League in the past. The article was put to AFD just to illustrate a point. The above user deleted or redirected half of the stadium articles from that country. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hardly; I went through a list of 51 stadiums -- which are not remotely all the stadiums in the country -- and redirected 19, preferring that to deletion. The editor above reverted the redirects without a valid reason, and I suggest that he is the one being pointy. In any event, this article cannot be kept without reliable sourcing; I suggest that if Ludost Mlačani wishes to do the former, he ought to provide the latter. Ravenswing 12:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20. actually, just after a RfD debate about one stadium. 20 out of 51 of stadiums in a country, that were doing just fine for 10 years or more, some of them from the top league. If that is not a classic case of POINTY I do not know what is. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to the team. Unsourced single line stub, can be dealt with in the article on the team. significant coverage in reliable sources is required to satisfy WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FK ŽAK Kikinda, the tenants/owners of this stadium. Giant Snowman 12:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to a redirect; that was my first choice. Ravenswing 19:52, 14 November 2021 (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 OFK Mladenovac. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stadion Selters[edit]

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

Minor league sports stadium that has lacked reliable sourcing for over 9 years, no reliable sources found other than routine sports coverage and casual mentions. Attempt to redirect reverted by a single editor who pointily reverted numerous unsourced articles from being redirected to their associated club articles, following a flap at RfD -- and perhaps one should take note that the editor in question, with only a handful of edits, has a user name identical to the stadium involved. [16]. Ravenswing 12:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current league level is irrelevant. The article was put to AFD just to illustrate a point. The above user deleted or redirected half of the stadium articles from that country. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article fails GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to the team. Single line stub, can be dealt with in the article on the team. Only reference is an unreliable source. significant coverage in reliable sources is required to satisfy WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 11:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OFK Mladenovac, the tenants/owners of this stadium. Giant Snowman 12:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to a redirect; that was my first choice. Ravenswing 19:52, 14 November 2021 (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 FK Hajduk Beograd. Fenix down (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stadion Hajduk Lion[edit]

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

Minor league sports stadium that has been unsourced for over 13 years, no reliable sources found other than routine sports coverage and casual mentions. Attempt to redirect reverted by a single editor who pointily reverted numerous unsourced articles from being redirected to their associated club articles, following a flap at RfD -- and perhaps one should take note that the editor in question, with only a handful of edits, has a user name identical to the stadium involved. [17]. Ravenswing 12:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current tier of a club is irrelevant. The stadium was used for top tier league in the past. The article was put to AFD just to illustrate a point. The above user deleted or redirected half of the stadium articles from that country. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hardly; I went through a list of 51 stadiums -- which are not remotely all the stadiums in the country -- and redirected 19, preferring that to deletion. The editor above reverted the redirects without a valid reason, and I suggest that he is the one being pointy. In any event, this article cannot be kept without reliable sourcing; I suggest that if Ludost Mlačani wishes to do the former, he ought to provide the latter. Ravenswing 12:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20. actually, just after a RfD debate about one stadium. 20 out of 51 of stadiums in a country, that were doing just fine for 10 years or more, some of them from the top league. If that is not a classic case of POINTY I do not know what is. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article fails GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to the team. Unsourced single line stub, can be dealt with in the article on the team. significant coverage in reliable sources is required to satisfy WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FK Hajduk Beograd, the tenants/owners of this stadium. Giant Snowman 12:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to a redirect; that was my first choice. Ravenswing 19:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In 1999–2000 and 2004–2005 seasons it served as top-level venue of FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro football league. Olos88 (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which does not meet any relevant notability criterion. Ravenswing 00:03, 18 November 2021 (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 RFK Novi Sad 1921. Fenix down (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Detelinara Stadium[edit]

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

Sports stadium for fifth-tier team that has been unsourced for over 7 years, no reliable sources found other than routine sports coverage and casual mentions. Attempt to redirect reverted by a single editor who pointily reverted numerous unsourced articles from being redirected to their associated club articles, following a flap at RfD -- and perhaps one should take note that the editor in question, with only a handful of edits, has a user name identical to the stadium involved. [18]. Ravenswing 12:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current tier of a club is irrelevant. The article was put to AFD just to illustrate a point. The above user deleted or redirected half of the stadium articles from that country. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator perhaps doesn't realise that Novi Sad were once a top division team? Number 57 10:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: As it happens, I did. Since notability is not inherited, perhaps you don't realize that housing (or not) top division matches meets no notability criterion. Ravenswing 15:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - So why did you emphasise the fact that they're a fifth tier team? Was this an attempt to mislead contributors into thinking they are insignificant? Personally I think any ground that has hosted top division football in a reasonably prominent football nation is notable. Given how old the ground is and the former prominence of the club, I would be surprised if there is not coverage of it in printed sources, but I have no idea whether there is a Serbian/Yugoslav newspaper archive. Number 57 17:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - If there are sources, produce them. That being said, while I don't question that you personally feel that such stadia should be notable, deletion discussions are based on the notability criteria that actually exist. Ravenswing 22:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to the team. regardless of the tier of the team, this article is about the stadium. The single line stub has a single unreliable reference as its source. Where are the reliable sources for this to satisfy WP:GNG? Polyamorph (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to RFK Novi Sad 1921, the tenants/owners of this stadium. Giant Snowman 12:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to a redirect; that was my first choice. Ravenswing 19:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to RFK Novi Sad 1921. They have been using it since forever. Some coverage can be found, e.g. "Počela rekonstrukcija fudbalskog stadiona "Detelinara"" [Reconstruction of football stadium Detelinara commences]. Radio Television of Vojvodina. 18 June 2020., with the mayor opening the works, but it's not a terribly important venue for uses other than by the FK Novi Sad. No such user (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For three seasons it served as top-level Yugoslavian soccer league venue. [19] Is it really not enough for notability? Would you also delete articles about former first league venues from Spain, France or Italy? Olos88 (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have been explaining this to you over several AfDs now, and I'm baffled as to why you are refusing to accept it: notability is not inherited on Wikipedia. Articles of top-flight stadia from Spain, France and Italy would absolutely be liable for deletion or redirect if they were unsourced. Since this was asked by another uncomprehending editor, I checked all the stadia article for the Premier League. The stadium there with the least amount of sources has more sources than all of the Serbian football stadia articles combined; several of the stadium articles have over a hundred sources, and a few nearly THREE hundred. Ravenswing 00:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not every article should have over hundred sources, we create here long articles as well as stubs, which also have right to exist at least if the topic is considered as notable. And if the topic is: former level-one Yugoslavian stadium, then it is enough for notability, in fact, considering how big this country was, how popular football there was, for me it should be enough for stand alone article, if the stadium was a level-two venue in that country. Olos88 (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2021 (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 FK Sloga Kraljevo. Fenix down (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kraljevo City Stadium[edit]

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

Neighborhood sports stadium for minor league team that has been unsourced for over 9 years, no reliable sources found other than routine sports coverage and casual mention. Attempt to redirect reverted by a single editor who pointily reverted numerous unsourced articles from being redirected to their associated club articles, following a flap at RfD -- and perhaps one should take note that the editor in question, with only a handful of edits, has a user name identical to the stadium involved. [20]. Ravenswing 12:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current tier of a club is irrelevant. The article was put to AFD just to illustrate a point. The above user deleted or redirected half of the stadium articles from that country. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hardly; I went through a list of 51 stadiums -- which are not remotely all the stadiums in the country -- and redirected 19, preferring that to deletion. The editor above reverted the redirects without a valid reason, and I suggest that he is the one being pointy. In any event, this article cannot be kept without reliable sourcing; I suggest that if Ludost Mlačani wishes to do the former, he ought to provide the latter. Ravenswing 12:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20. actually, just after a RfD debate about one stadium. 20 out of 51 of stadiums in a country, that were doing just fine for 10 years or more, some of them from the top league. If that is not a classic case of POINTY I do not know what is. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to reveal it to you but I think that you are the one being POINTy here, Ludost. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Me? I am not the one who went to delete half of the stadiums in one country just after a RfD debate, where inconsistency and bias was presented. Imagine if someone went to delete half the stadiums in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:English_Football_League_venues. I am just trying to preserve encyclopedic content. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ludost Mlačani: Practically all of the articles this user has nominated are poor quality and fail GNG. Please be objective. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ludost Mlačani: First off, that RfD debate? Consensus ran unanimously against your POV. Secondly, I did not originally seek to delete any of these articles; instead, I redirected them to their associated teams, and it was you who forced AfDs. Thirdly, sure, let's examine the English top-flight stadium articles. The one with the least number of cites has more than every Serbian football stadium article combined. And we are not talking primary sources such as the stadia or team websites, but cites to several books, FIFA, the Times and the like. Finally, of course you're not trying to preserve "encyclopedic content" -- there was none to preserve. These articles contain nothing more than the location of these stadia, the teams associated with them, and their capacity ... information that was already in the team articles. What you are pushing is a personal crusade, one that accounts for nearly a fifth of your Wikipedia edits to date, and if you were truly seeking to preserve these articles, you would attempt to improve them. To date, you have not made a single productive edit to any Serbian football stadium article. Ravenswing 11:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article fails GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to the team. Unsourced single line stub, can be dealt with in the article on the team. significant coverage in reliable sources is required to satisfy WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FK Sloga Kraljevo, the tenants/owners of this stadium. Giant Snowman 12:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to a redirect; that was my first choice. Ravenswing 19:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FK Sloga Kraljevo possible search term.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2021 (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 FK Radnički Nova Pazova. Fenix down (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Pazova City Stadium[edit]

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

Small town sports stadium that has been unsourced for over 9 years, no reliable sources found other than routine sports coverage and casual mention. Attempt to redirect reverted by a single editor who pointily reverted numerous unsourced articles from being redirected to their associated club articles, following a flap at RfD -- and perhaps one should take note that the editor in question, with only a handful of edits, has a user name identical to the stadium involved. [21]. Ravenswing 12:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The size of a town is irrelevant. The article was put to AFD just to illustrate a point. The above user deleted or redirected half of the stadium articles from that country. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hardly; I went through a list of 51 stadiums -- which are not remotely all the stadiums in the country -- and redirected 19, preferring that to deletion. The editor above reverted the redirects without a valid reason, and I suggest that he is the one being pointy. In any event, this article cannot be kept without reliable sourcing; I suggest that if Ludost Mlačani wishes to do the former, he ought to provide the latter. Ravenswing 12:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20. actually, just after a RfD debate about one stadium. 20 out of 51 of stadiums in a country, that were doing just fine for 10 years or more, some of them from the top league. If that is not a classic case of POINTY I do not know what is. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article fails GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to the team. Unsourced single line stub, can be dealt with in the article on the team. significant coverage in reliable sources is required to satisfy WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FK Radnički Nova Pazova, the tenants/owners of this stadium. Giant Snowman 12:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to a redirect; that was my first choice. Ravenswing 19:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FK Radnički Nova Pazova possible search term.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2021 (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 FK ČSK Čelarevo. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stadion Pivare[edit]

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

Small town sports stadium that has been unsourced for over 13 years, no reliable sources found other than routine sports coverage and casual mention. Attempt to redirect reverted by a single editor who pointily reverted numerous unsourced articles from being redirected to their associated club articles, following a flap at RfD -- and perhaps one should take note that the editor in question, with only a handful of edits, has a user name identical to the stadium involved. [22]. Ravenswing 12:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The size of a town is irrelevant. The article was put to AFD just to illustrate a point. The above user deleted or redirected half of the stadium articles from that country. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the WP:SIGCOV of this stadium? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ludost Mlačani: Please read WP:TDLI. The nominator has every right to nominate - this article fails GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing GNG. The comment by Ludost Mlacani doesn't make sense. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to the team. Fails WP:GNG - where is the WP:SIGCOV required in reliable sources? Polyamorph (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FK ČSK Čelarevo, the tenants/owners of this stadium. Giant Snowman 12:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to a redirect; that was my first choice. Ravenswing 19:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FK ČSK Čelarevo possible search term.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FK ČSK Čelarevo - not likely to pass GNG or WP:NBUILD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Messouke Oloumou[edit]

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

Does not play in a fully professional league. Mvqr (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cameroon-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited as a Footballer. For now fails WP:NFOOTBALL. DMySon (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Without prejudice to change vote to Keep if significant coverage is later found. For my search, I was unable to find WP:SIGCOV for the subject, noting that someone with searching skills for Nepali/Cameroonian sources might uncover things I was unable to. Until that point, my vote stands as delete. GauchoDude (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bikash Meraglia[edit]

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

The page has no references at all. A WP:BEFORE didn't show me anything credible, and also, the page seems to be WP:TOOSOON Reading Beans^{Talk to the Beans} 11:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Reading Beans^{Talk to the Beans} 11:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Reading Beans^{Talk to the Beans} 11:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not in a fully professional league. I was about to nominate this too.--Mvqr (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7, when the player isn't even above youth level, there are no credible claims to notability. Geschichte (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTY. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Fails WP:NFOOTY, however looks to pass WP:GNG. Articles about him in various languages here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc. GauchoDude (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Fade258 (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2021 (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. Consensus appears clear that, at least, WP:GNG has been met. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kulan Gath[edit]

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

I prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". The PROD was removed by User:Artw who asked for an AfD. Recent expansion unfortunately is limited to further plot summary/list of appearances in media and the article still has zero discussion of character's reception/significance/analysis/impact etc. In the spirit of PRESERVE, the best I can think of is a short merge and redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: K (unless someone can think of a better target). Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strongly disagree with the characterization of the sources, which cover the character's cross title history, their use by multiple companies and the impact of their appearance in the Claremont era X-men run. Artw (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All you are saying is that the character appeared in several crossovers/different series. That does not help estabilih their notability, the lack of which is evident from the article's structure which has two sections - ficitonal biography (plot summary) and list of apperances in various media. Until a reception or such can be added, this is not encyclopedic-level material. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The covergae esatblishes notability. Your notes on the structure of the article is irrelevant, unless you cna point at a real deletion creiterea you should withdraw. Artw (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect or delete~~ An article which contains only plot information and a listing of in-universe appearances is not encyclopedic, according to WP:NPLOT and WP:WAF. What this article should do but doesn't is to discuss things like out-universe significance and impact. In-universe details should appear in no more than a small prose summary for context, and these quite obviously have no bearing on notability, no matter how many secondary sources one finds. Avilich (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the sarticle: "He was later fully integrated into the Marvel Universe, and he became popular for his appearances in X-Men.[2][3] In 2006, he was also used by Dynamite Entertainment when they got a hold of Red Sonja." - which part of that takes place in-universe? Artw (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those describes significant external reception and impact? Avilich (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this as a concession that WP:NPLOT is not actually an issue. Artw (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several online articles with Kulan Garth as their main topic already in the article. So WP:GNG is fullfilled in my view. As these articles focus heavily on plot summary WP:ALLPLOT remains a concern. But as can be seen from the sentence quoted by Artw as well as what I've added as the start of a reception section, there is some complementary non-plot information, so I think this can remain as a separate article. As it is so far not overly much, I am at this point not strongly opposed to a proper merge + redirect, but I think this is not necessary. This non-independent(?) but non-plot summary source could also complement the independent but plot-focussed articles already present. Daranios (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only thing I can see in your source is "The villain of the story is the dreaded Kulan Gath, a sorcerer who considers the She-Devil's time displacement as a game". It's only a snippet, but it doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Much of the reception is someone's opinion of the character's portrayal in the series ("darkest in the world of MV", "most powerful"...). I'm leaning towards a redirect and merge if consensus allows it. Avilich (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich: From this source: "...Kulan Gath has been pretty much treated as a very one dimensional villain..." etc. I don't say it's very long, but it's character evaluation. I'll add with that to the reception section when I come around to it. "in the series" refers to KISS or the Screen Rant sources already in the article? Daranios (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

«"one of the most powerful" and the "darkest sorcerer" in the world of Marvel Comics», «Kulan Garth "has not been a major player in the comics over the years"», «"the darkest Sorcerer Supreme" from the Marvel Comics»: all of this concerns the character's in-universe portrayal, rather than real-world impact. This would probably fit well in a character list of some sort, but I'm not seeing individual notability here. Avilich (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich: I disagree here, I think these are judgements on the character from the viewpoint of the comics reader, not from the viewpoint of his fellow characters within the fictional universe. I don't think they would be found within the comics, i.e. in-universe. That's prominent in "has not been a major player in the comics over the years", which says something about use of the character by the comics publishers, not if or if not he is a major player within the fictional universe. I've now added what I found relevant from the interview with author Amy Chu. Daranios (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that if analysis is limited to few adjectives, we are not meeting SIGCOV here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: As usual, I am looking at it from the result point of view: Despite the individual sources having only short commentary, we have collectively ended up with a paragraph of if. (I've done one more bit of expansion.) So together with the introductory section, a publication history (which acutally does not seem to be complete as it is in the article now), and a balanced section of plot summary, we can write more "than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic" and more than "a few sentences", fullfilling WP:WHYN as well as WP:NPLOT. That's enough for me. Or, approaching it from the other side, taking the same material together, the length in my view would be such that it would feel somewhat akward as a section only in List of Marvel Comics characters: K. Now I am curiously awaiting what the closer thinks. Daranios (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your expansion is good, but I still think the notability is borderline and I am afraid my reading of GNG suggests that SIGCOV is not optional. That said, the majority of commentators think it is sufficient, so it may remain, in which case I'll congratulate you on saving this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing out my vote above, Daranios's expansion is borderline, I have no further opinion. Avilich (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with the nominator's rationale that WP:GNG is not met. I feel it is, by articles such as this and this which focus on this character. NemesisAT (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those are just brief recaps of his fictional biography and appearances, possibly based on our entry or relevant wikias, none has a shred of analysis. If this is the best we can find, I am still not convinced we need a stand-alone entry here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daranios' argument. Dimadick (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daranios and NemesisAT, who in my opinion have demonstrated that viable sources do exist for this topic in their arguments. Haleth (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Librex[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not able to find any significant coverage that isn't from student media. Per WP:STUDENTMEDIA, "a topic which can be sourced exclusively to student media, with no evidence of wider coverage in mass market general interest media, is not likely to be viewed as notable." I think that is clearly the case here. ––FormalDude talk 06:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 21:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 21:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 21:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 21:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. Has not been around for long, and would need to stand the test of time in my opinion, and not be just another "two kids and an app" which come and go routinely. There are a few sources, even being student media they might be given the benefit of a doubt in the long run. However, most likely this will go the same way as other efforts based on volunteers (such as other Wikis like the several wannabe competitors to Wikipedia): go moribund when the founders graduate and need to get real jobs to pay the bills. W Nowicki (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage seems mainly limited to student media rather than independent sources. LibStar (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend salting as the page has been recreated after multiple deletion discussions. ––FormalDude ^talk 06:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the South[edit]

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

Minor Italian political party, seems to fail WP:GNG/WP:ORG. There is certainly no significant coverage in English, and as far as I can tell there's nothing in Italian either, as a search for partito politico "Per il Sud" turns up nothing useful (and for supposedly the first Italian party founded over the internet, there's a surprising lack of online presence in general). The article itself states that the party is not represented in any parliament or assembly, and as such it makes no credible claim to notability. The absence of an article on the Italian wiki is also not promising. Lennart97 (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ninaipadharku Neramillai[edit]

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

No reliable source used in the article. All are spam links. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 15:20, 11 November 2021 (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. Daniel (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vibodha[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in general media. Terminology from Fringe topic and violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Given sources are books on fringe theory (pseudoscience). Article also violates WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. Venkat TL (talk) 09:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 09:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyright violation. Another article, Pashyanti, created by the same user was just speedily deleted in the middle of a deletion discussion for the same reason. I'm finding pieces of the article at a website that appears to compile lists of sentences from other sources that contain a specified word. In this case, I found passages from the article verbatim here and here, which I'd presume were in turn taken from the sources referenced in the article. Largoplazo (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just noticed that the author, User:Aditya soni, hasn't edited any currently extant pages since 2015, and that these are old articles. It occurred to me that these articles only now being brought to AFD are so old that I could be wrong (as could be the editor who called out copyvios on the Pashyanti article), and the sources we're finding are from Wikipedia mirrors. I question that because the sentences there aren't in the same order as they are here. Anyway, if we're right, however, then I note that this editor created 253 pages, of which 22 have been deleted so far. I'm wondering whether other pages created by the same user should be reviewed. Largoplazo (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed the G12 tag, the cited websites appear to be spam mirrors. This isn't a comment on the content of the rest of the article. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 21:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now blanked the article as a copyright violation and listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2021 November 16. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 23:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idol Fret[edit]

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

Unsourced, seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any significant coverage of this band online. Since they were active in the 70s/80s, it's possible that coverage exists in print, but given that they were "mostly known for playing in clubs and pubs around the east of Manchester, Rochdale and Oldham", it's unlikely that it would amount to more than some routine local coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. I can't find any print coverage of them, and I doubt anything more than local coverage exists, given that they were in existence for almost a decade and only released one 7" single on a small independent label in all that time. The Deeply Vale Festival was a significant punk festival, but really only from 1978 onwards, after the band had appeared there – the 1976 festival only had around 300 attendees, and the 1977 festival around 2000, and Idle Fret don't appear on the advertising for either festival, suggesting that they were way down the bill. Apart from a succession of IPs, the only other major contributor to the article appears to be "UKJas" – it may be coincidence that the catalogue number of that one single was JAS1, and they are probably the initials of the band's founder John Simpson, but it does smack of autobiography. Richard3120 (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Richard3120. This may have been "acceptable in the 00s" on Wikipedia, but not now. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2021 (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. Fenix down (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Abbas Ayad[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Only played in Iraqi league which isn't fully pro. BlameRuiner (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 09:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 09:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 09:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - article is fairly well-written and subject has chances of meeting NFOOTY soon. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Shawqi[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Only played in Iraqi league which isn't fully pro. BlameRuiner (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 09:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 09:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 09:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:51, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of sources for John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry[edit]

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

WP:Listcruft. I don't see the need in an article like this. The raid is surely notable but this would likely just be better as a redirect to John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry#Citations or a similar section wizzito | say hello! 09:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 09:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 09:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 09:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 09:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This 30K article should not be added to the 109K article. Valid split off article. We're an encyclopedia, we have no limit of space, this is something people studying history can make use of. Dream Focus 10:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT into an actual article about contemporary accounts of the raid and not a list. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (that is, a summary of knowledge), not a bare list of primary sources, which are great references but not sufficient standalone material for an article. Primary sources with minimal encyclopedic context belong in “see also” sections and Wikisource. Dronebogus (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is quite an interesting article, the scope is obvious and not OR. The topic is self-contained, and it is well sourced. Definitely worth having as an article. If anything there should be more "list of sources" articles for specific historical events when the scope is clear enough and there are only so many primary sources. Rauisuchian (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep. This is an interesting article, with some issues that need to be addressed. However, I don't support deleting it as the topic is self-contained and well sourced. Just need some formatting changes. The man from Gianyar (talk) 10:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Huh. This looks a bit unusual, but it's not a bad idea. The focal event is clearly notable, and the criteria for inclusion are decently clear, so there aren't really any problems with having this list around. And we do have lists of primary sources; List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein is even featured, for example. XOR'easter (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is an exceptional case. We have a long substantial article on the raid. I have grave doubts as to whether an article discussing the historiography of the subject belongs in WP. It might be appropriate in an academic journal, but not here. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I removed this list from the article to shorten it. It is today 109K. The list is 30K. deisenbe (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SPINOUT. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yassin Karim[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Finishing what was started last year, since it's now settled that Iraqi league is not fully-pro. --BlameRuiner (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 09:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 09:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 09:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:52, 14 November 2021 (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) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alobo Naga[edit]

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

Unambiguous advertising or promotion with no significant coverage. The article was previously deleted three times for the same reason. Check: Deletion log . The author of the article created this article and his two albums rises WP:COI. Onmyway22 talk 07:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onmyway22 talk 07:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Onmyway22 talk 07:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Onmyway22 talk 07:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onmyway22 talk 07:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onmyway22 talk 07:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are significant coverage on media. Also he won some international music awards. User:The Anonymous Earthling (talk) 15:15, 07 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The ~~below~~ above Keep comment is from the author Onmyway22 talk 18:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC) I corrected it to above. Geschichte (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. Rolling Stone is definitely reliable. There is also a further assertation of notability with a music award from MTV. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources already in the article including Rolling Stone (India) and Morung Express. That is easily enough to satisfy WP:ANYBIO and the MTV Europe award is further evidence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aspenhoff, Missouri[edit]

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

A "recreational community" (read summer/weekend homes). Developers describe it as "perfect weekend retreat". Newspapers.com results are almost entirely real estate listings, found even less searching elsewhere. I don't think WP:GEOLAND was intended to make what is essentially a collection of vacation homes notable, and WP:GNG isn't met. Hog Farm _Talk 07:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 07:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 07:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agree this is simply a subdivision/private development[23]. I am not finding evidence that this subdivision is independently notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:36, 11 November 2021 (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. Since the redirect opinion doesn't tell us where to redirect to. Sandstein 10:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stonewall Mills, Virginia[edit]

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

I doubt this is a notable community:

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/88724294/abbey-gregory-stonewall-mills/ (something about a person named Abbey Gregory as postmistress)

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/88724279/stonewall-mills-papers/ "Papers will be sent to the offices named after each, Stonewall Mills, Appomattox County"

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/88724312/dr-j-i-tripletts-stonewall-mills/ "Dr. J. I. Triplett's Stonewall Mills" wizzito | say hello! 06:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 06:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 06:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GEOLAND #1 for lack of legal recognition, no evidence of GNG as the newspaper coverage etc. are solely passing mentions. This appears simply to be the site of mills that were near the nearby village of Stonewall. Some may be inclined to !vote keep on this given the presence of a post-office. I remind everyone that post offices can be literally anywhere, even mobile, and are often simply co-located with stores/stations and so-forth, and as such are not necessarily evidence of a community, still less of legal recognition. If anyone can find any references for the village of Stonewall, I could alternatively see merging this there, but Stonewall is also a GNIS stub. FOARP (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found one source and added it for the consideration of editors, that source says it was a populated place with 20 residents in the 1840s. Having dipped into some of these Virginia locality AfDs in the last year or so, I have been amazed to learn how rural much of Virginia is, with nary a town of any size in some counties. But this seems to be more than the crossroad articles that have been pared away in some counties.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect; of only 85 newspaper results, all of them seem to have been covered by the nominator, and I am not seeing a lot of evidence for the necessity of a standalone article here. jp×g 22:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Best South American Goalkeeper[edit]

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

The single source for this table says “ The IFFHS (International Federation of Football History and Statistics) has been organizing elections for the "Football Player of the Century" for various countries and continents, and separate elections for the "Goal Keeper of the Century". Apparently elections were based on polls of journalists and former players, but no specific details are known.” There are various rankings publicised by various different authorities, but this one does not appear to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we're not a mirror of International Federation of Football History and Statistics, and we've deleted similar articles that are just copies of their random stats before. No evidence that this award is notable, as anyone can decide to publish a ranking of people. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable award. A note about the player who won can be left on his article, but this award does not merit an article in itself. WP:NOTSTATS. Fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Copa América statistics[edit]

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

List of competition statistics, much of it unsupported by the sources cited and apparently original research. Also WP:NOSTATS applies. Mccapra (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perfect example of WP:NOTSTATS. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 12:50, 14 November 2021 (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 by nominator.(non-admin closure) (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 13:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hanne Blank[edit]

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

Non-notable writer, google search turns up wikipedia and some press releases. Sources cited in the article are either self-published (the subject's blog) or press releases. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 03:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 09:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 09:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ~~Couldn't find anything either that wasn't self-promotional, an interview or a blogpost.~~ Good work from the editors below. Ravenswing 12:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found many sources that aren't self-published. Her books have been reviewed in scholarly journals, e.g.:
1. Cornog, Martha (2001). "Big Big Love: A Sourcebook on Sex for People of Size and Those Who Love Them. By Hanne Blank. Emeryville, CA: Greenery Press, 2000. 280 pp., bibliography. Paperback, ISBN 1-890159-16-6, $15.95". Journal of Sex Education and Therapy. 26 (4): 376–377. doi:10.1080/01614576.2001.11074456.
2. Addison, Sheila (30 January 2013). "Hanne Blank. Big Big Love (Revised). A Sex and Relationships Guide for People of Size (and Those Who Love Them). Berkeley, CA: Celestial Arts, 2011. Rebecca Jane Weinstein. Fat Sex: The Naked Truth. North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2012". Fat Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Body Weight and Society. 2 (1): 105–109. doi:10.1080/21604851.2013.737203.
3. Linkof, Ryan (1 December 2013). "Straight: A Surprisingly Short History of Heterosexuality. By Hanne Blank (Boston: Beacon Press, 2012. 264 pp.)". Journal of Social History. 47 (2): 530–533. doi:10.1093/jsh/sht067.
4. Wilson, Jenna M. (15 December 2020). "Fat by Hanne Blank, Bloomsbury Academic, 2020". Fat Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Body Weight and Society. 10 (2): 205–207. doi:10.1080/21604851.2020.1859819.
pburka (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per pburka and WP:AUTHOR, she has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work and such work has been the primary subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The Wikipedia Library also has reviews, e.g. 1) Stout, Jennifer. “Blank, Hanne. Straight: The Surprisingly Short History of Heterosexuality.” Library Journal, April 15, 2012. (EBSCOhost); 2) Baughman, P. (2012, December 1). Blank, Hanne. The Unapologetic Fat Girl’s Guide to Exercise: And Other Incendiary Acts. Library Journal, 137(20). (EBSCOhost); 3) Blank, Hanne: STRAIGHT (Kirkus, 2011, via Gale); 4) Shatto, Rachel. "Riots not diets: Hanne Blank wants you to move, just for the love of it." Curve, vol. 23, no. 4, May 2013, pp. 26+. Gale; 5) Irvine, J.M. "Blank, Hanne. Straight: the surprisingly short history of heterosexuality." CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, vol. 49, no. 11, July 2012, p. 2103. Gale; 6) "Straight: The Surprisingly Short History of Heterosexuality." Publishers Weekly, vol. 258, no. 39, 26 Sept. 2011, pp. 55+. Gale; 7) Roberta, Jean. "Psychopathia Sexualis." The Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, vol. 19, no. 4, July-Aug. 2012, pp. 41+. Gale; 8) Zuger, Abigail. "In search of the elusive definition of heterosexuality." New York Times, 31 Jan. 2012, p. D5(L). Gale; 9) Blank, Hanne. Virgin: The Untouched History. By: Gilbert, Ellen D., Library Journal, 03630277, Vol. 132, Issue 7; 10) Blank, Hanne. "Those Were the Days." The Women's Review of Books, vol. 36, no. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2019, p. 30. Gale; 11) Bitch Magazine: Feminist Response to Pop Culture. Fall2007, Issue 37, p70-75. 6p. (EBSCOhost), 12) Kuczynski A. VIRGIN: The Untouched History. By Hanne Blank. New York Times Book Review. 2007;(12):6. (EBSCOhost) etc. She also has an entry in Contemporary Authors, New Revision Series. 2013, v. 248, p57-59. Beccaynr (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Vecchiarelli[edit]

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

This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. I can't find any reliable sources to supprt the article. It currently contain no inline citations, The external links are to her gallery and dead links WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC) )[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are some links to potential sources in https://web.archive.org/web/20070317215337/http://www.naivemalerei.eu/Deutsch/austellungen-naive-kunst-claudia-vecchiarelli.html I also went through everything posted on http://www.crupisgallery.it/antonio/inglese/mostre_inglese.htm and found nothing useful. Fawning praise in local publications, but nothing that could be used to write a proper biography. No indication that the subject might be a notable artist. Vexations (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shark incident[edit]

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

Orphaned disambiguation page. AFAIK, neither Shark attack or Jumping the shark are known as "Shark incident". 162 etc. (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: contains no useful information. What happened was that this used to redirect to "shark attack" (which is questionable at best) and someone came along and thought that "jumping the shark" was equally pertinent, so it became a disam. page. If this gets redirected to shark attack, that's fine by me too. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NoDabGood. Not even close to resembling a distant cousin of a relative of a dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's like adding the sky and various oceans to Big blue things. Just because they fit a description doesn't mean they belong in a dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 10:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vague term, neither thing is called "shark incident" commonly. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete kinda funny but yeah no nobody actually uses this term. Dronebogus (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2021 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GOAT (platform)[edit]

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

Was conflicted about accepting it. I recently was told that one way in such cases was to accept and nominate for deletion so that the community can decide. It has a lot of funding related clutter but also some sources like vogue and LA times may meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say keep on this one—between the L.A. Times' storyline coverage, ZDNet's coverage of the algorithms used by the company, and Forbes' investment coverage, I think this article has something to offer and passes WP:NCORP. This article does need to be rewritten, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I included the funding because I thought it was relevant to a young company. It certainly has WP:CORPDEPTH as I found many more articles but I didn't want to commit WP:OVERKILL. --Timothyplaya (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timothyplaya , I should remind you that you must declare your WP:COI if you are connected with the company. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection. I was surprised this was a business and then I started researching.--Timothyplaya (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Between the LA Times, Vogue, and a number of in depth WSJ articles, the references meet WP:NCORP. The "funding clutter" (assuming this is a reference to Footlocker?) has received a ton of coverage across a range of publications (e.g. Barron's, CNBC, Tech Crunch, GQ), so even this seems to be a notable enough inclusion. Pegnawl (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2021 (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. Despite the sources provided in this discussion, the analysis determined that these were not sufficient establish the institution's notability. ✗plicit 04:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Central Technology Center[edit]

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

This article reads very clearly like an advertisement and has very little to any biographical information. Either the article needs to be rewritten as from an encyclopedic perspective or should be deleted. Halfadaniel (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the article's in poor quality, and it's certainly a small vocational school- (roughly equivalent to a county-size community college, perhaps 250 students?), but there are appear to be articles that would make it pass GNG 1 2 3. I also think there's probably something notable around their pipeline training program. If someone was motivated, merging it and the other voc schools into Oklahoma Department of Career and Technology Education might make sense. tedder (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the references provided by Tedder are particularly strong. The first is local newspaper interview, the second is a blog post, and the other two are primary. None of which counts for notability. I couldn't find anything better either. So I'm not sure what grounds there are to keep this on. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Adamant1—unless more sources can be found, the ones present and proposed here aren't enough to pass GNG. A newspapers.com search looks promising, but the harder you look, the less there is. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avelgood[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. References 2 and 4 to 10 are the Nokia store. Gnews comes up with press release like coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a Google search doesn’t provide much just simply announcements and pr coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP.-Xclusivzik (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YNW Sakchaser[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper whose only coverage in reliable sources is from his death. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In music he had no accomplishments or coverage that meet WP:NMUSICBIO; his only media coverage is as the victim of a famous (accused) murderer and that falls afoul of personal notability guidelines at WP:NVICTIM. The crime is already better described at the article for YNW Melly. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not have enough coverage to meet notability. Chelokabob (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Papua New Guinea–Turkey relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There really isn't much to these relations besides a bit of Turkish aid. There are no embassies, agreements, state visits and trade is "negligible". The excessive reading list makes no mention of Turkey in any of the titles. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this article is deleted, I'd just like the sentence "Turkey also contributed diplomatically to find a diplomatic solution to Papua New Guinea’s conflict with Indonesia..." to be preserved somewhere in history, because that did have me rolling. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you preserved it by saying it now. Geschichte (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ba-dum-tiss. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 15:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the odd "further reading" section, I'm not seeing evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that would establish the notability of this topic. Yilloslime (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2021 (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.