< August 11	August 13 >

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ozone Action Day[edit]

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

I would like to hear opinions on the Ozone Action Day article and whether is should be deleted.

This article is really bad, and I am not sure it is worth the effort to reform it.

Much of the existing text has nothing to do with Ozone Action Days and is about ozone and it's detrimental effects on humans and worker safety concerns. We already cover those topics in better articles at Ozone and Indoor air quality.

I suspect Ozone Action Days are a US-only thing, as nothing in other countries is mentioned. I would expect this article to say what triggers declaration of an Ozone Action Day, and how many days per year are named Ozone Action Days in sample cities. But nothing about that.

Plus the article is really poorly written. I don't mind working on that, but I think if Wikipedia is going to address Ozone Action Days we should just add a paragraph or two to Smog

Carax (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and United States of America. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Poorly written article, with almost nothing unique. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic is likely notable and definitely USA-specific, e.g. [1], but there is almost no encyclopedic content relevant to the supposed topic. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article is off-topic and covers topics which already have related articles. Suonii180 (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. The article reads like an EPA factsheet and is honestly beyond rescue. However, I am only voting delete on the basis that there be no prejudice against the creation of a healthy article in its place. This should not be 'merged' into smog. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 12:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adelbert Bucher[edit]

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

Article created by a COI editor and promoted from AFC by a now-indefblocked sockpuppet; subject is non-notable chocolatier with insufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources. BD2412 T 23:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am seeing lots of media attention, around a theme of articles based on interviews in Indian newspapers. I assume these are connected to a PR drive, but I don't want to write them all off, it seems lots of newspapers took an interest.

https://bwhotelier.businessworld.in/article/Initiating-Creating-and-Conceptualising/28-06-2017-120970/ (passing mention
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/bombay-times/lindt-chef-makes-mumbai-chocolate-lovers-drool/articleshow/29584871.cms (focus of article)
https://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-photo/view-of-the-taj-mahal-made-by-adelbert-bucher-from-white-news-photo/98306289 photos, does that suggest notability?
https://www.forbesindia.com/interview/ask-the-insider/is-chocolate-good-for-the-skin/12272/1 interview
http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/white-magic/599028/ (reliant on quotes)
https://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/Recreating-the-Taj/article11642234.ece includes quotes
https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-charminar-monument-replicated-in-chocolate-1443328 includes quotes
https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/chennai/2010/nov/22/the-chocolate-taj-mahal-205002.html

Before I !vote, I'm wondering what people think of the coverage in these (and other) sources. CT55555 (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would suspect that the existence of this article is part of the same PR drive. BD2412 T 02:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the articles above are acceptable. The best one is Timesofindia, but that one is mostly quotation, which is the same as an interview and not acceptable. Most of these publications could be paid PR.Zeddedm (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more feedback on the articles found by CT55555 and whether they establish some level on notability or are just, as BD2412 implies, PR drivel.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on the articles provided above is that, unfortunately, they're inapropriate. All of them, instead of providing info about this guy and what he's doing, are instead cute-sounding stereotypical advertising snippets (buzzwords covered in chocolate, dare i say :-)). So yeah, coupled with the fact that this was created by banned users and a sockpuppet... Delete. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lorraine, Quebec. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lorraine City Council[edit]

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

Previously prodded, and challenged. Article is unreferenced, and the organization is not notable. This is for a town of approx. 10,000 residents north of Laval, Quebec. The Council does not meet the general notability guideline. PK T(alk) 18:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 18:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. City councils aren't "inherently" notable just because they exist, especially the city councils of small cities — the notability test for a city council requires WP:GNG-worthy referencing about the city council and its work, not content self-published by the city, but the sole "reference" here is the latter type rather than the former. Bearcat (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Lorraine, Quebec as WP:ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 06:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, I wouldn't merge anything that's currently in the council article to the Lorraine article, in particular because it's completely unreferenced. PK T(alk) 16:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a source at the bottom: Sources: City Charter (Bill 125); Proceedings of the Council; List of Council Members established by the City. At the very least, the content about how the city was founded and the first mayor could be merged. Jumpytoo Talk 03:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider whether it is better to delete this article or merge/redirect it to another one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lorraine, Quebec and tag section for needing additional references. Nfitz (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Munezero Aline[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. The first refs that should address notability are simply gossip-column tittle-tattle. Nothing reliable that speaks to notability. Other refs "demonstrate" that she has got engaged. Fails WP:GNG by a very wide margin Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Rwanda. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hard to find sources, she was nominated for a national movie award [2] probably helps support notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2022 (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 01:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Penis (film)[edit]

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

Lots of Reddit, self-published fan references backing up v. questionable content ("one of the first gay films", despite films about male homosexuality being around since 1919, at least). There may be some indication of notability, but frankly I think it's a good idea to delete this article and start over, if needs be. QueenofBithynia (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2022 (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 12:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SadaPay[edit]

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

Disputed draftification. WP:ADMASQ. Fails WP:NCORP 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, and Pakistan. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

well the whole point of Wikipedia is to create encyclopedia. The article is arguable in various terms but it is not an advertisement. SadaPay,If you lookup you may find it pretty notable across web. Elaborate your reasons for deletion Mulairi^{suggest/consult} 21:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reason is it's all routine funding announcements and nothing we can use to prove notability. It's unknown outside of its home country and not known across the web. Oaktree b (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Press-releases and funding announcements, same level of coverage as the crypto ones that pop up in AfD every so often. Same stuff, nothing notable. Newest web news for them is from April 2022, not even sustained coverage over the last 4 months. They raised money, launched their "thing" and it just works. Almost routine. Oaktree b (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
just did. Mulairi^{suggest/consult} 20:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – qualifies WP:NWEB. A startup posed to be become fastest-growing mobile wallet in the world in next five years (20-25), gave me strong indications of this fintech's notability. Found following IND, RS sources in Google searches. [3], [4] [5]. Thanks. Ahated (talk!) 17:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Faseeh Mangi's Nov 2021 Bloomberg article covers various companies' propositions, and mentions that Boku, Inc. anticipate that SadaPay will be a fastest-growing app, while noting that "Neither company has begun fully fledged operations yet." There is subsequent announcement-based coverage in April 2022 when the central bank licenced the firm to operate. Overall, this is coverage indicative of a start-up proposition which may or may not succeed in its chosen market, beyond the funding rounds. At best, WP:TOOSOON, not demonstrating attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still no sources found since last time I voted above. Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no enough references and does not passes WP:ORGCRITE BBSTOP (talk) 12:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Lindfjeld[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years. No coverage except social media. Refs are 404. Fails WP:SIGCOV. No coverage. scope_creep^Talk 22:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Fashion, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBIO. I could not find any significant coverage for this person. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete beyond social media, found the odd mention (e.g. https://www.seoghoer.dk/kendte/maschas-mange-facetter-playboy-bunny-frederik-og-mary), but not enough independant significant coverage to warrant a pass of WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually digging a bit more - the English translation of the Danish Wikipedia has some more info at https://da-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Anne_Lindfjeld?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp which also led me to https://www-avisen-dk.translate.goog/Pages/Guests/Articles/2020/ShowTemplatedArticle.aspx?ArticleID=74548&Type=74548&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp Still not really significant coverage though. Also, refs being 404 is not a reason to delete, especially when pages are archived. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That second ref was the original ref that was posted in the previous Afd. There is really not much apart from that and the Danish WP has the same problems as the this article, namely extreme tenuousness, lack of coverage. A single ref doesn't cut it and and there is no coverage, nor will there be. scope_creep^Talk 23:02, 16 August 2022 (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. Alternatively, this can be restored to Draft space where it can be improved and worked on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yerlan Baidaulet[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON - LinkedIn type article Paul W (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Kazakhstan. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon! Thanks for the comments, indeed the article is still very raw. I tried to improve it, added sources and removed unverified information. Could you check, please? @Paul W @Shellwood ~~~~ AlibiKazken (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have redrafted the article so that the career section is in prose rather than a bulleted list. There are no reliable sources for the subject's life and career before 2000; for biographies of living people (BLPs) we normally expect a minimum of one reliable citation per paragraph. The Reuters and OIC sources confirm the subject held various offices, but are routine reporting of other matters, not expressly about Baidaulet - Wikipedia notability criteria requires subjects to have "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other." Paul W (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Femke (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't really know, since I'm a fairly new editor and don't know Wikipedia policy inside and out yet, but it looks like most of his appointments are political, and that he has served on national and international bodies. It's not clear to me what the rules are with regard to international organizations, but since they are funded by governments I think it would be reasonable to regard them as extensions of governments. If that is the case, then I think that he would qualify under WP:POLITICIAN. Of course, I may be wrong, so hopefully someone who has more experience can comment. Chagropango (talk) 10:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2022 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tunde Apalowo[edit]

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

Only passing mentions in sources mostly for awards received. Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV Hughesdarren (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he won important awards.PrisonerB (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The subject satisfy wp:anybio as a recipient of this notable award and others. Dfertileplain (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — passes WP:NACTOR. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I hate to relist discussions a third time but I'm not convinced that the award this individual won is a major award or that the sources are very reliable. It would be helpful to hear from more editors about the specifics of the sourcing here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I also have a feeling that there's some sockpuppetry going on here, but i cant prove it for now... Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Handmeanotherbagofthemchips: I'm curious what's leading you to believe this? DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 12:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree there's no direct detailing of the subject in RS, mostly an assertion that the subject won an award for one film. Subject's film project made "box office success grossing ₦12.5 million worldwide" on "an estimated budget of whopping ₦62 million." Perhaps show business works differently in Nigeria. BusterD (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2022 (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 Guidon Games. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ironclad (game)[edit]

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

Non-notable substub that's probably a PROD candidate, but it's possible that BOZ or Guinness323 could find some refs. No refs are provided whatsoever, there's seemingly a mention on Books, but it's another game (see BGG entry) with Frank Lantz as the designer. The low number of ratings on BGG, just 6, perhaps also indicates its obscurity, but with no refs here or online per a BEFORE search, this is non-notable and doesn't even have a claim of notability. VickKiang (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is actually, if it's the one I'm thinking of, a seminal game that may only be covered in offline sources due to its age. I'll pop back later to see if anyone else is finding this to be the case. Jclemens (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Guidon Games, given zero WP:GNG shown from the article itself, and the disucssion here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Guidon Games. Sourcing is limited (at best) but it's mentioned in at least two article and GG seems like the best redirect target. Hobit (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Guidon Games - The article is completely unsourced so it cannot remain in that state, but a logical redirect target exists. Rorshacma (talk) 06:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Guidon Games.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2022 (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. Consensus is clear. Though the article creator has tried to make the case, no one else was swayed. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Hickey[edit]

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

i fail to see how she's a notable actress, she's only held very, very minor, mostly unnamed roles or roles in non-notable productions. The claims about winning best actress come from non-notable awards as well. There is no in depth coverage of her to be found and the bulk of the sources here are absolutely unreliable or completely primary like her own CV. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for opening discussion. The criteria for inclusion doesn't revolve around our personal views on whether roles are minor or major. The topic of this article, per policy, has been covered by notable and reliable sources. The majority of the information was pulled from Belmont University, TV Guide, Arizona Daily Star, Apple Inc., and Voyage LA. I'm not sure how the other site, Actors Access, shows signs of being an unreliable source. I also don't see how the aforementioned references are less reliable than those used in pages like Emma Fuhrmann and Saxon Sharbino, which largely cite sources that don't even have Wikipedia pages. The notable sources are there, and this page can grow over time. Deletion isn't necessary. -- James26 (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my personal opinion, it's evidenced by the lack of sources. The sources in the article are almost entirely primary or unreliable (Voyage group is pay to publish interviews and worthless.) PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the sources are Belmont University, TV Guide, Arizona Daily Star, and Apple Inc. How are those unreliable? -- James26 (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, read what I said. PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've read what you said multiple times. Can you tell me how those do not count as reliable sources and don't verify the claims in the article? -- James26 (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:42 - after nearly 8k edits, I'd think this would be something you should understand. The sources aren't coverage OF her. PRAXIDICAE🌈 02:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

The majority of the article's body is pulled from those reliable sources, which are all dedicated to her (see the ref list). The citations for Actors Access are mainly credits. I don't know if Voyage LA is a paid site. I have no problem removing it. Can you verify that? -- James26 (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is significant coverage, both Belmont sources are affiliated with her and are press releases, ADS is an interview and TV Guide is a listing, no more reliable than IMDB. PRAXIDICAE🌈 02:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just following what's written in the link you provided. " Not: articles written by the topic (including interviews), paid for by the topic, their website, or their organization. Not a press release written by a publicist". Do you have proof that the Belmont sources were written by her, paid for by her, paid for by her website, or written by her publicist? Do you have proof that TV Guide is "no more reliable than IMDB?" ADS verifies the claims made. Do you have proof that it was paid for by her? -- James26 (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go, bud. Let me know if you can provide proof of any of the things I mentioned. -- James26 (talk) 02:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TV Guide is a listing you provided and IMDb is depreciated as a source as it's self-published. The links you have given aren't significant coverage of her. I've been mentioned in various media, doesn't make me notable for our purposes here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The fact that someone tried to defend such article, it smells a little foul... Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing foul. I've cited Wikipedia policy. For an article to be deleted, one needs to establish proof that policy has been violated. The policies in question are independence and reliability. The questions here are:
- Is there proof that Hickey created the sources, paid to have them created, or had a publicist do so?
- Is there proof that the sources are not reliable?

If there's proof, go ahead and present it. -- James26 (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable parts in non-notable short films, the awards aren't notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the question is whether the article adheres to Wikipedia policy, not whether anyone thinks her parts are notable. The article cites reliable sources which have not been proven to be created or paid for by her. -- James26 (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If she plays bit-parts, she doesn't qualify for ACTOR. GNG would also likely not be met here either. No significant coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all things considered, I'm not seeing much of a case here for WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. James26's insistence that even the TV Guide should count towards coverage, shows a pretty poor understanding of notability guidelines.-KH-1 (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The TV Guide reference is gone. It wasn't needed. I'll simply quote the notability guideline.

From WP:GNG: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
"There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected."
Per guidelines, this is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Per guidelines, the definition of independent is a source that "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent."
- Meet Andrea Hickey -- Voyage LA
The Voyage site is not as established as the others, but it also dedicated significant coverage to the subject. According to its guidelines, the periodical does not collect and sell data, and there is no mention of it charging for coverage.

From Wikipedia:Notability (people): " 'Notable' in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary." WP:NACTOR is secondary to the General Notability Guideline.

Again, how does the article fail to meet the primary policy guidelines cited above? -- James26 (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my view, AfDs are best argued by stating your view & evidence, once; and allowing others to do the same. Arguing the toss at length with each and every person who expresses a contrary opinion is kinda obsessive behaviour which is not productive, is often unproductive. Repeatedly waving the same three sources, which have repeatedly failed to impress other users, is, again, unpersuasive. At some point you need to take on board & accept that others have formed a legitimate, different view. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Tagishsimon No problem. Great point. My issue is that people typing "Delete" aren't explaining how the article fails to meet the GNG guidelines. I've explained how it does. If an article I worked hard on has to be deleted, fine, but I'd rather it not be deleted unfairly. -- James26 (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we have, extensively, you're just refusing to acknowledge that you're incorrect in your interpretation of GNG and other policies. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "interpretation." I've pasted direct quotes. Explain how I'm incorrect. I'm listening. Explain how the sources are not reliable and independent. Explain how the coverage is not significant. You also haven't answered my question: Do you have proof that she or her representatives paid to have any of the sources created? -- James26 (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDHT. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've politely asked you to explain how the article fails to meet guidelines, which is completely reasonable in a deletion discussion, and you've simply dismissed me, probably because you can't explain. You could learn from this part: "Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you." But, yes, we should stop interacting. -- James26 (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there appears to be insufficient support in independent and reliable secondary sources for WP:GNG/WP:BASIC or WP:NACTOR notability. The first source in the article, Tucson actress Andrea Hickey finds Hollywood success 'The Wild West Chronicles' (Tuscon.com, Jul 15, 2021) is based on an interview and does not appear to describe significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; the reliance on an interview and information from the subject means there is limited independent support for WP:BASIC notability. The second source is Meet Andrea Hickey (VoyageLA, Aug 6, 2020) which is an interview without secondary context or commentary. This style of promotional content appears to be part of the editorial policy of VoyageLa: "As you browse through our stories you’ll notice that many of our interviews aren’t as polished as you’ll find elsewhere in the media. That’s intentional [...] Accordingly our mission is to build a platform that fosters collaboration and support for small businesses, independent artists and entrepreneurs [...]" The third source is from Belmont University, where Hickey graduated from in 2010, i.e. Andrea Hickey ’10 Finds Success as Actress in Los Angeles (June 15, 2021), so this is not an independent source, in addition to its reliance on quotes from Hickey. The fourth source in the article leads to "resumes.actorsaccess.com//one_page_resume.cfm" but I only get a message stating "The page you have attempted to view is private." However, given that it appears to be a resume, it does not appear to be the kind of independent, secondary sourcing needed to help support notability per the guidelines, and it is used to support the existence of minor film festival awards. The fifth source is an event announcement that does not mention her and would not support notability if it did. The sixth source is also from Belmont University, which as noted above, is not independent per the guidelines and cannot support notability. The TV Guide source suggested in this discussion also does not appear to help support notability, including because it does not indicate support for WP:NACTOR by demonstrating significant roles in multiple notable productions. My online search found another promotional interview that reminded me of the VoyageLA interview, (Meet Andrea Hickey: Actress, Shoutout Arizona, August 10, 2020) and this is also a Voyage Group publication (e.g. "we’ve grown to almost a dozen cities, generated millions of page views and helped tens of thousands of entrepreneurs and creatives share their stories."). Beyond the lack of independent and secondary content available from the Voyage Group productions to support notability, the apparent promotional purpose of these publications indicate they are little more than press releases and not suitable for supporting encyclopedic content. Overall, the limited independent biographical information available from sources is not particularly in-depth and detailed, so there is not much available to combine per WP:BASIC into an article about this subject at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate your courteous explanation. As mentioned, I can deal with a deletion as long as it's fair and my questions are not ignored. The Independent policy notes: "written by the topic (including interviews), paid for by the topic, their website, or their organization. Not a press release written by a publicist." Can you show me a policy that states that articles from an alma mater violate the Notability guideline? -- James26 (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG includes, "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it, and she is affiliated with the university she attended and graduated from. This guideline also includes in footnote 5, Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability, and the Belmont sources are interview-based and seem to promote her and the university, which also seems to weigh against support for notability per WP:NOT policy, which excludes WP:PROMO. Beccaynr (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wish I'd spoken to you earlier. I appreciate the hard work you put into your own searches and explanation. The article was written in good faith, like my others. But I know that the decision on what to do with it is out of my hands. For the time being, I'm going to try keeping her images on Commons and see if I can find more secondary sourcing to improve the page either now or in the future. -- James26 (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
images will likely get deleted if they aren't used in an article. If she's not a notable individual, it's a lady in a blue dress, we have plenty of those in photos already. Oaktree b (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User that "created" the photo used in the article (and another one), uploaded them, but one is likely a copyvio, so I'd be cautious. Oaktree b (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

". . .it's a lady in a blue dress, we have plenty of those in photos already."

This part actually made me chuckle. :) -- James26 (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oh I've nominated photos for deletion, you'd be amazed what people upload... Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the article is being copied to another prominent site. No idea if either of the images will be transfered. Someone might write another article about her here if she gets enough coverage in secondary sources, but, like you said, I imagine that the images will be removed from Commons in the meanwhile. -- James26 (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2022 (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. No blame attaches for not knowing this, but current consensus is that all validly described recent taxa at species or higher level are treated as notable for purposes of having a standalone article. No benefit in keeping this open any longer. (non-admin closure) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pansepta amoerocera[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Does Wikipedia need an article about every existing species? FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 21:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't find a guideline like WP:GEOLAND, but I feel like species should maybe be treated similarly? We have indeed hundreds of stub articles about species (several just in this genus, Pansepta), and so I feel like this is a very fundamental question. I'm genuinely unsure how to vote here, and would love the input of some experienced editor. And a link to policy for this, if it exists. --LordPeterII (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, Wikipedia does in fact need an article about every existing species. Why wouldn't we? Every one is in at least two RS. Next time provide an actual deletion rationale. Central and Adams (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks Shellwood & Central and Adams! That was exactly what I was looking for. Not precisely a policy, but a rationale. But to be fair, I wasn't aware of it either since it's not easy to find, so I can understand why the nominator nominated this in good faith. --LordPeterII (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Biology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 13 August 2022 (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Heatherly[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NMMA. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix is 133th in the world welterweight rankings. Also never previously appeared in any of Sherdog's rankings. As I stated in the previous deletion discussion, he also fails WP:GNG, none of the coverage demonstrated in that discussion was significant. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 20:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and United States of America. Justi yaya 23:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He still fails WP:NMMA, which is not surprising since he hasn't fought in 6 years, and I still am not seeing multiple cases of significant independent coverage that convince me that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This flurry of "Delete per nom" comments on all of the AFDs do not help an admin close a discussion because it's clear you haven't actually evaluated the article, you just repeat the same comment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Luke[edit]

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

Article reads like a promotional piece for a radio presenter who appears to have done nothing notable other than appear on the radio (and also advertises her therapy business). This is content suitable for a radio fan site but not an encyclopedia. Flip Format (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, United Kingdom, and Canada. Flip Format (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No it doesn't. It has independent references and there's no issue with notability. And it doesn't advertise her therapy business. And I have removed some of the more advertising elements, not that there were any in the first place. Rillington (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find pieces she's reported on (and the most recent from 2016), but no notable sources about her. Almost promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the ones I found are for American people, nothing about this UK person. Oaktree b (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. Nothing found about her in a WP:BEFORE. SBKSPP (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per from. Fails WP:BIO and unable to find adequate information to justify keeping. Skipple ☎ 12:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Tunnicliffe[edit]

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

Article about a distinctly non-notable local radio and nightclub DJ who once appeared on an episode of a daytime cookery TV show. Flip Format (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and United Kingdom. Flip Format (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is much harder to justify keeping as it stands. However I'm not in favour of article deletion, I cannot advocate for its retention but I'm sure that there are independent references which could improve this article. Rillington (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2022 (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Nur Sharkeey[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Somalia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find reliable sources for WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2022 (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadad Ibrahim Anwar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Somalia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I could only find user-generated sources and couldn't find reliable enough sources for WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2022 (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abas Amin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Somalia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, He has a section on Eurosport but by itself I don't think it passes WP:GNG and I couldn't find other sources that weren't user-generated. Suonii180 (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2022 (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Osman Abdulahi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Somalia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he has a section on Eurosport but the only info it has is that he plays for Somalia and I couldn't find good enough sources for WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2022 (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Ibrahim Abdulkadir[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Somalia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find any reliable sources for WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2022 (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damal Francis[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has a Eurosport profile but I couldn't find sources which were in-depth enough for WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2022 (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzgerald Bramble[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find reliable sources for WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2022 (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Francis (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Participated in World Cup qualification matches for Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NSPORTS2022, there is a clear community consensus that participation-based notability criteria for sportspeople are bunk, and (as a result) WP:NSOCCER is no more. Additionally, per WP:NSPORTS2022, at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject is required. I have looked for significant coverage of this individual and I have simply been unable to find it, so this article should be deleted in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8, which is to say that it fails to satisfy any of the relevant notability guidelines. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find reliable sources to pass WP:GNG although there are other footballers with the same name so it made the search more difficult. Suonii180 (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2022 (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amy DeGise[edit]

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

seems like a WP:BLP1E, she's not notable under WP:NPOL and the only coverage is currently from a potential crime, though it isn't significant enough to warrant an article. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. Agreed that this is a WP:BLP1E, not notable by WP:GNG standards. Sal2100 (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. She does not meet NPOL. The only non-routine coverage I can find revolves around the hit run, so BLP1E also applies. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a sad story, but all we have is the one incident. Alansohn (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jersey City is not a global city for the purposes of securing the "inherent" notability of its city councillors, so getting her into Wikipedia requires not just verifying that she exists, but demonstrating that she has a credible claim to being one of the most individually significant non-global-city councillors in the entire United States. That hasn't been shown here at all, as it's referenced entirely to primary sources rather than independent or reliable ones, and even the sourcing that could potentially be added to bolster it just makes her a WP:BLP1E rather than a topic of sustained nationalized interest. I suspect, frankly, that this was created in an attempt to misuse Wikipedia as a "name and shame her for doing a bad thing" platform instead of an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat I suspect, frankly, that this was created in an attempt to misuse Wikipedia as a "name and shame her for doing a bad thing" platform instead of an encyclopedia. indeed and the scary part is that it was created by an administrator who should absolutely know better wrt BLPs. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Though I agree with the previous criticisms that the article was largely focused on coverage of her recent hit-and-run arrest, I have expanded the article with coverage of her significant political career. The chair of the Hudson County Democratic Organization is a political boss who, though not inherently notable by virtue of the office, holds large implicit power by virtue of their ability to sway a primary election in the region and state. See the article on Frank Hague for elaboration on how significant DeGise's position is or George Norcross for the importance of political bosses in New Jersey. Though there is some debate over whether DeGise or her father (or neither) is the boss of the Hudson County Party, she is not merely a council member. I hope that my edits will have made the article, which I agree was lacking, sufficient. I will continue to find suitable sources; I think an article should probably be written for her father, too. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't enough to cite four pieces of purely run of the mill local coverage in her local media where such coverage is merely expected to exist — every city councillor in every city can always show three or four hits in their own local media, so if four hits of local coverage were all it took to exempt a city councillor from our inclusion standards for local politicians then no local politician would ever actually be subject to those standards at all anymore. To actually get a city councillor into Wikipedia, you would have to show nationalizing coverage, demonstrating a reason why she could credibly claim to be one of the most individually important city councillors in the entire country. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2022 (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Haunted Mansion characters[edit]

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

See maintenance tags: pure, in-universe fancruft sourced entirely from official Disney blogs and fansites. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Disney. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very niche content for Disney fans. Not notable beyond the attraction itself to stand in an article, trivial. Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cannot find any reliable sources that discuss these characters in detail. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The_Haunted_Mansion#Lore. This is mostly unreferenced, WP:NLIST does not appear met, but a merger of summary, with some refs, would be good given the linked to "Lore" section right now consists of just a "see this list". A bit of plot summary should exist in the target article and this list can be condensed into such a form (note: a cut of ~90-95% in lenght is likely warranted, given that this is, let's face it, WP:FANCRUFT). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with The Haunted Mansion, but establish a character section for the mansion's inhabitants in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have found some sources and am sure their are others. [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10]. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge if anything useful. Andre🚐 18:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced content into The Haunted Mansion. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kaleeb18's sourcing. I'll note that deletion arguments not considering merger are non-policy-based, and those opining before the demonstration of sources should be discounted. Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a check of the sources cited by Kaleeb show that they provide no information that would showcase a WP:NLIST pass, indeed they do not seem to provide any relevant commentary on the characters at all, merely providing some trivial in-universe plot description. Attempting to merge any of the poorly referenced fancruft that currently makes up this article would almost certainly be a WP:UNDUEWEIGHT violation. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Of the sources provided above, only the one from the OC Register really actually discusses the topic of the actual "characters" in the ride, rather than as part of a discussion of the ride as a whole. I was considering the idea of a merge to The Haunted Mansion#Lore as suggested by Piotrus, but the actual notable ghosts discussed in the OC register article are all actually described in the article already in the detailed description in the "Attraction" section. The OC Register article should be added as a reference to the main The Haunted Mansion article for sure, but since there is no actual information using it as a source in this list, a merge would not be needed for that. Rorshacma (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to muddy the issue further, IIRC, the original ride designers did not intend to include any kind of actual story within the ride, so a good deal of this material is "fanon" developed over the years by Disney fans and ride ops at the parks. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, especially their latter comment. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. Sources don't have enough coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2022 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hisham Al Jamaan[edit]

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

Notability has not been established with WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the absence of any secondary sources. Article is sourced only to the subject's own social media accounts and his own business website. I can find no news coverage of the subject or his company. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete preferably speedy (g5) as this is a known undisclosed paid editor and the subject is not notable (and is in fact paying for coverage as evidenced by the crappy sourcing in the article.) PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lord Belbury lacks third party sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Carmen Sandiego (video game series). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? (Gameloft)[edit]

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

From what I can see, fails WP:N. Mobile game released under Verizon Wireless store for non-smartphones. Unable to find any English sources on the topic other than the official news post on MarketScreener. Perhaps deserves passing mention on Carmen Sandiego (video game series). Skipple ☎ 17:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Skipple ☎ 17:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carmen Sandiego (video game series), nothing to add to the succinct nomination. The coverage beyond the one review cited (and it's a website which I'm not familiar with) in the article is all passing mentions or press releases (along with some questionable refs). My searches haven't brought out anything worthy of mention, fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Carmen Sandiego (video game series) - I was unable to find any additional coverage of the game, and that single review currently present in the article would not be enough to pass the WP:GNG on its own. There is no reason not to include it on the main list of games in the franchise, though, so merging to the main article would be preferable to deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per above. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect as per all of the above is the best solution. TH1980 (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per above Andre🚐 04:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Carmen Sandiego (video game series) per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2022 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charitha Rathnayake[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Sri Lanka. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. I suspect there are Tamil-language sources out there, but I can't find any. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:38, 15 August 2022 (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hiram Hunte[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - best source I could find is this squad listing so nominator appears to be correct Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 19 August 2022 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Blanchard[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:37, 15 August 2022 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Henry (footballer, born 1993)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:34, 15 August 2022 (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. Unanimous & policy based support to keep. (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Datchinamurthy Kataiah[edit]

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

At this rate, every single death row individual in Singapore will be getting his own article. This, like the other articles, is an extreme example of WP:NOTNEWS. Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is incredibly well sourced and clearly meets GNG. Why shouldn't every death row prisoner in the world with this much press have an article? This has zero to do with NOTNEWS since the coverage spans eleven years. Consequently there's no valid deletion criterion stated. Central and Adams (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very well sourced article, meets WP:GNG. I see no reason to remove. Skipple ☎ 20:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Datchinamurthy's case is clearly notable and he has been consistently attracting attention since his death sentence was passed on him by the courts (especially during the final years leading up to his execution). There was no reason to remove his article since he has a lot of coverage. --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly notable from sources available (and also not merely accused). But articles about crimes and criminals especially should likely be evalutated critically in regards to WP:BLP, e.g. stating the names of a subject's sisters with no relevancy to the article otherwise is not acceptable, I think. --LordPeterII (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nazeri Lajim[edit]

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

One should not assume that a wealth of coverage necessarily translates into notability in an encyclopedic sense. The subject had a tragic life, and may his memory be a blessing, but I do not believe that WP:LASTING has been convincingly shown here. A textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS IMO. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

even if the subject were found to be notable, the level of detail here is surely excessive. As I alluded to above, not everything that is newsworthy is encyclopedia-worthy. Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is incredibly well sourced and clearly meets GNG. Why shouldn't every death row prisoner in the world with this much press have an article? This has zero to do with NOTNEWS since the coverage spans ten years. Consequently there's no valid deletion criterion stated. Also what does the "level of detail" have to do with AfD? AfD is not cleanup doesn't usually pertain to trimming down an article. Go edit the damn thing if you don't like it, don't nominate a clear GNG pass for deletion. Central and Adams (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note Nom's citation of WP:LASTING is misleading. This is a sufficient condition for event notability but it's not a necessary condition. This article satisfies WP:EVENTCRIT #2: Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards...

Keep because judging from the circumstances of his case, it does ignite the debate about the alleged racial make-up of Singapore's death row, and some discussions among Singaporeans about the need for compassion on some sympathetic drug cases on death row in the aftermath of his execution and several others. His involvement in the 2021 racial lawsuit, which was the first lawsuit about the alleged racial discrimination brought about by capital punishment in Singapore, can certainly stand witness to the racial debate that took place before his hanging. --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. There seems to be a consensus this article is not ready for the mainspace. A redirect can be created in the interim if desired, and this decision does not mean the article can't be moved back to the mainspace if circumstances change. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Alberto Rodriguez[edit]

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

This page was nominated for PROD by Let'srun (talk · contribs) using an incorrect procedure, and then deprodded without comment by Snickers2686 (talk · contribs). The rationale was:

Person is not notable and is no longer a nominee after the seat [at the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York] he was nominated to was nullified by the previous seatholder, David Hurd, withdrawing his senior status.

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and New York. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of federal judges appointed by Joe Biden. Per recent news events (about a judicial vacancy no longer being vacant?), there seem to be special circumstances here. Still, better to redirect to the list of nominations and preserve this page's history if the situation changes again. Novemberjazz 15:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep to me it's WP:TOOSOON to say what will happen to this nominee. Technically, his nomination is still pending. Perhaps he'll be nominated to another seat in New York. Until nomination is withdrawn by White House, to me, that's what should determine if the article is still warranted. Snickers2686 (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep for now~~ Draftify, it would probably be better if articles weren't created solely based on nominations, since nominees aren't always confirmed, unless they were independently notable. But now that we've got this one, it seems better to let it play out than to immediately delete.--Jahaza (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or draftify: Federal judge nominees are not granted inherent notability, per WP:USCJN, and there is no indication that he passes WP:GNG. Per the consensus that was established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany M. Cartwright, draftification seems like a good ATD, serving as a waiting room until he actually becomes notable, but redirection as stated above works too. Curbon7 (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany M. Cartwright. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Once the subject is conformed, it can move to the mainspace, per WP:USCJN. Nominees must meet WP:GNG with multiple independent, reliable sources. --Enos733 (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2022 (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 13:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brendon Coventry[edit]

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

Delete The article has had suspect and speculative content removed previously. I suggested to the editors on the talk page on May 08 2022 that the article be deleted. See talk page for: "This wiki was largely made up of material closely associated with the subject such as academic papers, reports and media releases and news articles written by the subject. I suggest the subject has been involved in this wiki as it reads like a profile page. It is also largely based on the immune cycle page material which seems to be closely related in terms of content. I have attempted to deal with the multiple issues involved. Worth considering this page for deletion." Progressing this matter by commencing discussion on deletion. Note that much of the previous content can be found at the subjects University of Adelaide "researcher profile" page (https://researchers.adelaide.edu.au/profile/brendon.coventry) and looks to have been copied directly from that page. LotFourteen (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if wiki-notability can be established, the current text is abysmally far from acceptable sourcing and would need to be blown up and rebuilt from scratch. I am also not convinced that wiki-notability can be established; the citation profile looks middle-of-the-road for a high-citation field, with lots of middle-coauthor entries. XOR'easter (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per NPROF, primary and non-independent sources are permitted in biographies of scholars, where they generally comprise a large chunk of the source material. The fact that this bio also cites multiple independent news media reporting on his results/quoting him as an expert is actually unusual and welcome, although they don't seem to be enough to meet C7 and don't contain any SIGCOV for GNG. The biography is rather promotional and ill-formatted, and if it contains copyvio from his websites should be revdeled, but it's not as egregious as many examples here and he may have a claim to notability. That said, a glance at his Scopus profile doesn't suggest he would meet C1 in this high-citation field, but I could take a look at his 400+ coauthors to see how he compares if that would be useful. JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here are the Scopus profiles of all 222 of his coauthors who had 30+ papers:

Total citations: average: 12590, median: 6080, Coventry: 5583.

Total papers: 219, 147, 167.

h-index: 44, 37, 27.

Top 5 papers: 1st: 1333, 718, 1461; 2nd: 852, 401, 920; 3rd: 591, 283, 607; 4th: 471, 227, 213; 5th: 389, 197, 153.

Given that none of his top five papers feature him as first or last author, and the fact that his h-index is so much lower than even the median, I'm going with a delete for this one. JoelleJay (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2022 (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. The only delete vote was was lack of significant coverage. However with other comments and changes made, I believed that this issues has been addressed. (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Zimmermann[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC, could not find significant coverage. Doesn't seem to have much success. At time of nomination, only source for this 12-year old article is a database. starship .paint (exalt) 14:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany, Olympics and Sportspeople. starship .paint (exalt) 14:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 16:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there is significant coverage in a reliable source here. I found that on the de.wiki article - personally, I think inter wiki research should be part of WP:BEFORE. St Anselm (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Der Spiegel article located by User:StAnselm. Zimmerman's exclusion from the 1964 German team partly because his relatively early adoption of screaming and the pushback he received is of particular interest given later developments in the sport[11]. With involvement across three Olympiads and their trials, redirect to Fencing at the 1960 Summer Olympics – Men's team épée or Fencing at the 1968 Summer Olympics – Men's team épée where he's mentioned wouldn't be appropriate (and those are just for the team events, whereas he would have competed individually too.)Jahaza (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jahaza. I have added the article mentioned above. St Anselm (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chamundi (film)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM ( The movie is Kannada in this page I myself source Tried to add but I didn't find any source for this movie) PravinGanechari (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. PravinGanechari (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The film's non-notable and the current refs, which are routine databases, doesn't indicate notability at all. On Google News and Google Books, there seem to be a lot of articles and books mentioning other subjects with a very similar name, but no refs are available for this one specifically. Therefore, currently I don't see the film meeting WP:GNG, or WP:NFILM. VickKiang (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2022 (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 13:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2022 (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 DC Comics characters: L. Looks like a plausible search term so I'm choosing to redirect this page. If you believe it should be redirected to a different target, please discuss this on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

L-Ron[edit]

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

Topic fails WP:GNG. There don't appear to be any substantial reliable sources talking about the character, only minor mentions and unreliable fluff articles like CBR. TTN (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. TTN (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources is presented in the current article, and searches bring up very little aside from brief mentions in plot summaries. I would probably also be fine with a Redirect to the article on Justice League International, the series where he debuted and made most of his major appearances in, where he is already briefly mentioned. Rorshacma (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma - just fictional cruft and FANDOM material with no basis in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a List of DC characters or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to whatever list seems most apropriate. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: L in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find any indication that L-Ron has received any secondary coverage at all. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 06:23, 15 August 2022 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kars S.K.[edit]

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

No sources presently in the article, none to be found that would establish notability. Thus fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. -- LordPeterII (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I couldn't wrap my head around how to apply Deletion sort tags to this. If someone could give me pointers on how to do this easily, I'd be grateful. --LordPeterII (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable sports team. Indianfootball98 (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources in article and none found. Fails WP:GNG. Fats40boy11 (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all above. Non notable low level club with no significant coverage. Carson Wentz (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G4. Recreated, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehrali Gasimov Ged UK 15:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gasimov Mehrali[edit]

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

promotional article about a non-notbale business person. i fail to see how being an honorary consul makes anyone notable and he doesn't appear to meet any other criteria for inclusion PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our country is one of the most famous policies of Azerbaijan. You can find it by searching on google. It is also an honorary console. 15:16, 12 August 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.244.124.194 (talk)

It is also an honorary console. ✨that's the point✨ PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Honorary consul is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees automatic inclusion in Wikipedia; it's a role where he would have to be shown to clear WP:GNG on his sourcing, but the references here aren't getting him over GNG — it's referenced to a mixture of primary sources and short glancing namechecks of his existence in news articles that aren't about him in any non-trivial sense, which is not the kind of sourcing it takes. And no, "our country is one of the most famous policies of Azerbaijan" is not grounds for a biographical article about an individual person who can't be properly shown to pass GNG, either. Also, for added bonus, this has been move-warred over, with an editor who is not an established AFC reviewer pushing it from draftspace to mainspace twice without a proper AFC review, which is also not okay. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrali Gasimov is one of the respected politicians in Azerbaijan. He has enough merits to Azerbaijan and Ukraine Republics. It is worth to mention that he was responsible to evacuate 360 Ukrainian citizens from Kabul and bring them to Azerbaijan in 2022 as a result of the revolution in Afghanistan. In addition, he organized the evacuation of more than 15,000 Azerbaijanis with Ukrainian citizenship to various European countries during the war with Russia. 17:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.244.124.194 (talk)

Notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is not a question of doing stuff, it's a question of receiving analytical media coverage in reliable sources about the stuff he did. A person could be the Second Coming of Christ, and still wouldn't get a Wikipedia article until real media write detailed and in-depth coverage about him being the Second Coming of Christ. Bearcat (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2022 (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 13:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Democrat Spring, Illinois[edit]

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

Democrat Spring appears to be just that: A spring. Topo maps show the name next to a few buildings dating back to the 1930s, but there's no evidence that this is an actual settlement, let alone a notable one. There were surprisingly many newspaper hits, but they were almost all examples of "democrat" and "spring" appearing next to each other for various unrelated reasons. –dlthewave ☎ 13:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. –dlthewave ☎ 13:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2022 (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Mojahedin[edit]

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

Duplicate article. "Muslim Mojahedin" is a generic term used for describing People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (and also used for describing other groups). Source consensus is undoubtedly clear about that. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The title is its own distinct term referring to one side of an internal schism within the PMOI that is currently inadequately examined on that page. It might be considered a child article of the schism on that page, and, were it currently a part of that page, it would make for a viable split, since Google Scholar yields plenty of unique scholarly hits for the specific term. The current overlap with the PMOI article is meanwhile incredibly low: the term "Muslim Mojahedin" is not even referenced there, despite being reliably attested in academic sources. So, there is little obvious duplication, no clear reason for deletion and good reason to retain the article as a viable child article. Were there space on PMOI to merge the content back in, that could have been an alternative, but, as it is, the page is already over-length, and that is not the topic here. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, with People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran as a WP:CONTENTFORK. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 12:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran period from 1975 to 1979 is already covered in the main article, so Muslim Mojahedin doesn't have a different scope. It's the same subject and it's already (better) covered in the main article. Iraniangal777 (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per above.Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK. "Muslim Mojahedin" is only a term, in this instance used to differentiate People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran from another group (which is something that's already analyzed in both of those articles). I don't see anything new or notable enough to move to the other articles, and a redirect isn’t a good idea because the term is also used as reference for many other groups. This is a (quite bad) POVFORK. Delete. Alex-h (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This article does not have anything not already covered in the main article. Therefore “Muslim Mojahedin” fails to support WP:GNG. Poya-P (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails WP:GNG KSAWikipedian (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arunita Kanjilal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SINGER and WP:GNG PravinGanechari (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PravinGanechari (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, India, and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I note the previous AfD was only a few months ago, and nothing much new has happened since then. I also note that 2 of the editors who contributed to this article are now blocked, so a bit of WP:SALT should be considered. In any case, whilst there is a bit of independant coverage, it's not significant enough to meet WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON at best. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Handmeanotherbagofthemchips, you should be aware of WP:PERNOM. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Ahh, ok, i'll be sure to be more descriptive next time; thanks for pointing me to that. In this case, frankly, i have nothing more to add to this discussion other than what the 2 of you have already said; this person is just not notable enough. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2022 (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 13:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Gipson (Actor)[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE done and I can see no good reason why this article should be a WP:REDIRECT to Temptation Island (TV series). While the citations advanced here may well indicate that there is a person of this name, in my opinion this article fails any number of tests for notability including but limited to WP:NACTOR As always, please do prove me wrong Shirt58 (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restore Thomas Gipson (Basketball player) to Thomas Gipson. Tassedethe (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 05:37, 15 August 2022 (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 16:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Premier Christianity[edit]

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

~~No indication of independent notability (secondary or third-party sources); all references I can find seem to be affiliated with the subject. QueenofBithynia (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment as another editor has done a good job at finding independent sources, I would favour keeping the article; however, this is just a weak keep on my part, so I will let the discussion run its course. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of independent notability like QueenofBithynia is saying. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreeing with QueenofBithynia and Fad Ariff. I did a quick Google search and found a few third party references, and while I don't think the websites are especially authoritative, they could be added to resolve at least the fact that there could be some independent mentions. I believe that someone could find sources, but as-is, this article should be deleted. --SidP (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC); since revision -- changed to Keep --SidP (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've improved the article and added two fairly extensive independent sources. This was at one point the best-selling Christian news magazine in Britain and it remains influential, getting big name politician and religious leader interviews and articles. There's a lot more that could be done to expand the article (including a lot more info in those sources), but they establish notability and that secondary sources are available.--Jahaza (talk) 23:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding the sources! I know I'm the nominator, but I would support keeping the article now. – QueenofBithynia (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jahaza. St Anselm (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It would be extremely appreciatable if any more source could be found. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A Christian magazine that has been going for some 50 years (in successive incarnations) ought to have an article. It appears now to be part of the same stable as Premier Christian Radio, and I would have liked to see something about that. A lack of sources for something that is in fact accurate is a reason to tag for improvement, not to tag for deletion. I note that the nom now seems to agree. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the additional sources identified and added to the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given the latest discovery of reliable sources. desmay (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doon Theological Journal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Indexed nowhere selective. No independent sources. Fails WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear fail of NJournals or GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2022 (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. After article improvements, character deemed significant enough for standalone article. (non-admin closure) ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron (The Walking Dead)[edit]

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

I've prodded it a while ago 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. ". PROD was removed without any rationale offered by a user since topic banned from deprodding. We then held a merge discussion that ended with no consensus (Talk:List_of_The_Walking_Dead_(TV_series)_characters#Merge_secondary_chacters_with_little_reception_here). Given the reception here is still a single sentence, I think it's time for an AfD, with my recommendation being a redirect to the List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The two articles cited in the reception section don't look to be enough to hold up the article. Unless anything additional is brought up here, I don't think it meets GNG at this time. That character list needs to be severely pruned, so I'm not sure if anything should be merged. TTN (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe this article will be salvageable as he is a major character on the series. It will take me some time to make a deep dive for sources, and I won't be able to start it until tomorrow at the earliest but I should be done by Tuesday at the latest. BOZ (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time, we are in no hurry. This can always be relisted at least once when undergoing a rewrite. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And so it has been. I got about halfway through what I wanted to look through, will resume most likely next week. BOZ (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AFDNOTAVOTE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per TTN. Insufficient sources to write enough of an article with real world context, and fails WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the development and reception section has been significantly improved during this discussion and now contains commentrary about the character from multiple reliable sources. Would the nominator have still nominated the article in its current rendition ? imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306 Probably not, the article has been significantly improved since the version I nominated. I'd withdraw my nom but unless @Jontesta changes their vote, procedurary this can't be speedy closed. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm still not even done going through the available episode reviews, I've just been a lot busier than I expected lately. BOZ (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has improved with sources regarding real-world significance, and nominator has indicated willingness to withdraw nomination. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to improvements. Any additional issues can be handled through normal editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Scalpel. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 07:50, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amphismela[edit]

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

Purely a one-line dicdef for 16 years, with no apparent potential for improvement. BD2412 T 05:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After 16 years, I was only just doing research on this yesterday when I saw it was not WikiProject tagged, so I'm surprised to see it nominated just the day after I was researching it for expansion/GNG!

The term is mentioned on page 78-79 of the currently cited Cyclopædia (depends which version you're looking in, but the text remains the same), and I managed to find another very brief mention at page 54 of [12]^[1]. After realising it was a medical instrument and not a military weapon apparently, I found significant coverage from a secondary source [13] for which I can verify a translation at [14]. This source reveals it as a French term used in the early 1700s for a "dissecting knife" used in cutting ligaments for amputations. Given the source's age it should be in public domain so the image of the knife from that source could be added to the article. This hypothesis is supported by the passing mention in [15]^[2] among other French dictionaries at the time. Likely due to mistranslation, it has also been spelt "amphismila" - it is stylised in french as amphismèle.[16]^[3]

According to [17]^[4], it was used for the "diffection of bones" (I believe it is referring to dissection or amputation) [18]^[5] instead says it was for the "diffection of bodies" - I speculate the term ended up there through word of mouth in French translation. There are a handful of other dictionaries to mimic this definition around the same timeframe such as [19].

[20] mentions in passing and apparently also does not know the origin of the term.

Will also note the stub got mirrored a lot: [21][22][23][24][25][26]. There are also apparently over a dozen mirrors mentioning the term from mirrors to List of medical roots, suffixes and prefixes (this doesn't help its case for notability but I think it is worth pointing out since these mirrors make it harder to find non-circular sources).

So, as far as notability, the sources are there I would image the article hasn't been expanded because it's extremely hard to find any detailed description of the object as it was in the 1700s. I think there is good reason to believe that somewhere there is a french 1700s medical book (almost certainly among the non-English non-dictionaries that show up as a search result at internet archive) that provides significant coverage to meet the two reliable sources required for GNG, hence my suggestion to keep. If the article survives AfD I am willing to expand the article with the information I found.

References

^ Dunglison, Robley (1848). Medical lexicon : a dictionary of medical science : containing a concise account of the various subjects and terms with the French and other synonymes, notices of climate, and of celebrated mineral waters, formulæ for various officinal and empirical preparations, etc. Lea and Blanchard. OCLC 8486401.
^ Dunglison, Robley (1848). "Art. XXVI.—Medical Lexicon. A Dictionary of Medical Science, containing a concise explanation of the various subjects and terms, with the French and other Synonymes, notices of Climate and of celebrated Mineral Waters. Formaiœ for various officinal and empirical Preparations, etc". The American Journal of the Medical Sciences. 16 (32): 428–429. doi:10.1097/00000441-184816320-00026. ISSN 0002-9629.
^ Fleming, Charles; Tibbins, J.; Dobson, J.; Picot, C. (1845). A new and complete French and English, and English and French Dictionary; on the basis of the Royal Dictionary. With complete tables of the Verbs, by C. Picot. The whole prepared with the addition of a number of terms in the Sciences; by J. Dobson. 2nd Edition. OCLC 561003324.
^ Blount, Thomas (1707). Glossographia anglicana nova or, A Dictionary, interpreting such hard words of whatever language, as are at present used in the English tongue, with their etymologies, definition, &c. Also the terms of divinity, law, physick, mathematicks, history, agriculture, logick, metaphysicks, grammar, poetry, musick, heraldry, architecture, painting, war, and all other arts and sciences are herein explain'd ... Printed for D. Brown. OCLC 561317338.
^ Bailey, N. (1735). An universal etymological English dictionary : ... The seventh edition, with considerable improvements. By N. Bailey ... Printed for J.J. and P. Knapton, D. Midwinter, A. Bettesworth and C. Hitch, J. Pemberton, R. Ware [and 6 others in London]. OCLC 520742114.

Darcyisverycute (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to knife (and don't unredirect without a change in focus). Above sources are all fine but don't seem to contradict the idea that this is merely an obscure synonym / alternate Greek term. Article should only be restored if there's evidence of this being a "separate topic," i.e. a specific kind of knife, rather than simply the term used for a knife by some 1700s French surgeons. (Also, note that "number of mirrors" is a weak argument, all of Wikipedia gets mirrored everywhere, including the non-notable parts.) SnowFire (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude talk 09:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to scalpel, as an obsolete name for a double edged scalpel or lancet. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 11:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Darcyisverycute, who said everything I was going to say and a whole lot more. Central and Adams (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Current article is in a bad shape, sources hard to find but possibly existing, and an editor is willing to do the hard work needed to get this actually ready for mainspace? I'd say this is the perfect candidate for a Draft. If it then turns out the sources were just hard to find, and a separate article is warranted – great, good job Darcyisverycute! And if it turns out sources were not sufficient after all – well, then this won't make it back to article space. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to scalpel, and merge the info to Scalpel#Ancient_scalpels. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, if user:Darcyisverycute would like a small amount of time to merge their text above into the article, perhaps this and the small listing of other ancient scalpels could become a whole article on the variety of ancient scalpels. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In current state, suggest redirect as above. No barriers to further expansion, but this stublet does no one any good, whereas landing at Scalpel#Ancient_scalpels is actually useful for the reader. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Scalpel#Ancient scalpels: This seems like an appropriate action given the sources found by Darcyisverycute. ––FormalDude talk 17:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per User:FormalDude. Maybe an entry on wikitionary, but not an article on Wikipedia. KSAWikipedian (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2022 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Hamidi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Afghanistan. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User has nominated ~25 articles for deletion in ~20 minutes. Imposisble that a WP:BEFORE was done for each, and the nominations appear to be in bad faith. NemesisAT (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep From what I have read on the talk page of the nominator, the user has mass nominated articles for deletion within a short amount of time and the nominations seem to be in bad faith. Fats40boy11 (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are a couple of sources that he played as Team Afghanistan goal keeper. See here In Persian [[27]]; [[28]]; and In English [[29]]; [[30]] Jawad Haqbeen (talk) 01:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per NemesisAT, Fats40boy11, and Jawad Haqbeen. In addition, he is a international capped player with an ongoing career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources linked above are deprecated (Sputnik News), a routine transactional announcement where he is mentioned in a list of names, and two sports stats databases. These are not remotely close to meeting GNG. Fats40boy11, a high rate of nominations isn't a valid speedy keep rationale as there is no policy- or guideline-based requirement for BEFORE and anyway we can't discern whether the nom actually did check for sources for each article beforehand. What matters here is whether the subject meets GNG, and from the sources provided above that seems to be a resounding no. JoelleJay (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @JoelleJay. I didn’t give a speedy keep, I gave a weak keep. That being said, I didn’t explain myself fully. ~~To be clear, I agree with Das Osmnezz and Jawad Haqbeen.~~ I also agreed with the point Nemesis made, and also raised it this point. However, I gave it a ‘weak keep’ at the time, and will stick with this or draftify. Fats40boy11 (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fats40boy11, but what does the rate of nominations have to do with whether this article subject is notable? There is nothing in our current rules prohibiting making many noms, so objecting to that wouldn't be considered a valid keep reason by closers. JoelleJay (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did personally give a ‘weak keep’, but as said above I didn’t explain myself fully at the time. As per JoelleJay, I agree that there are questions about whether the subject is notable, but I am in a way sat on the fence regarding this article. Are there any other reliable sources out there that we could find and use? If so, please leave them below. ~~That being said, I’m leaning to the article being draftified.~~ Any future contributions, or lack of, will have a strong influence on my decision, but there is no question that the article needs significant expansion should there be sources out there. However, we can’t keep articles if the sourcing is not good enough. Fats40boy11 (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Vacating my closure of no consensus and relisting for further input or an admin closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude talk 04:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep goalie of a national football team. KSAWikipedian (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:DINC KSAWikipedian (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those is a valid keep rationale. JoelleJay (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My own search for "فیصل حمیدی" returned little beyond what was mentioned by the other !voter above: mentions in routine transactional announcements and stats databases. Right now there is exactly one keep !vote that makes any type of P&G-based argument, which is certainly not sufficient for retaining the article and especially not when it is situated around non-GNG sources. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My previous comment said any future contributions, or lack of, will have a strong influence on my decision. As I have not found reliable sources that are sufficient in keeping the article, and other users have not found anything since my comment, I have thought carefully about my !vote for a considerable amount of time. As per JoelleJay, the sources above in this AFD are not sufficient in retaining the article. I did also lean toward draftify in my previous comment, but nobody has convinced me that sources may be out there and may just be difficult to find, hence why I have come to my conclusion. Fats40boy11 (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahan Ahmadi[edit]

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

Non-notable singer who doesn't satisfy any criterion from WP:SINGER. The sources cited are all paid spam sources, making them unusable for Wikipedia.-- Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Iran. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Lol no, the sources aren't just problematic because they are WP:SPONSORED, but because two of them are even written by the article subject themself, Mahan Ahmadi. So much for independence... *facepalm*. Nothing else can be found on Google either. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. No need to let this play out, as the sole author has agreed for draftification, with the agreement of the nominator and one other person. (non-admin closure) — Bilorv (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Course (web series)[edit]

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

Article doesn't have citations, makes no note of notability. A new author is working on this article so it should be sent to draft and if nothing comes of it the article can be deleted. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thatsalok has started working on it and if they are willing to work on it in draft then lets draftify it, if they aren't interested then let's move it for deletion. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Thanks @Dr vulpes I agree let move it to draft, let me complete it and then publish, if that okay? Thatsalok (talk) 07:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that sounds good to me. Normally I would have just sent this to draft but for articles that are older than 90 days we have to go through this process. Sorry for the hassle. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as agreed. Mccapra (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2022 (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. Self-promotion written by User talk:Imranhosen1997, deleted per ((db-g11)). – Athaenara ✉ 09:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M imran Hosen(imranhosen)[edit]

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

Autobio with no evidence of notability, significant coverage in RS not found (t · c) buidhe 06:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bangladesh. (t · c) buidhe 06:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Promotional autobiography of non notable musician. Mccapra (talk) 08:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A7 and A11. Same reasoning as Mccapra, and this article appears to be written about the editor who created it. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 08:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Anastasiou[edit]

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

This person isnt notable, and the only sources available belong to Anastasiou Obermallen (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Cyprus, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is promotional throughout. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, for some reason, the PRODder, de-PROD'd this article so it is not eligible for Soft Deletion and the discussion will be open at least for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Liz. I completely agree with the AfD being given more time to get more input. However, could you please reconsider the judgement about soft deletion being ineligible here? Given that the Prodder self-reverted when they decided to take it to AfD instead, I think it is very different to the usual situation of a Prod being disputed. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2022 (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 00:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Kimmel[edit]

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

Non-notable reality television contestant; competed on, but did not win, Survivor. Competed in non-notable beauty pageants. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Beauty pageants, and California. Bgsu98 (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some coverage in Screen Rant last year, [31] rest is typical tabloid/celebrity gossip stuff. Oaktree b (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Runner-up beauty queen and reality show contestant. Might technically meet WP:N, but isn't an interesting subject with substantial coverage. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, doesn't seem to pass notability guidelines. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Fighters and Houndy Crunchers[edit]

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

vanity press book , with no RS reviews. Self published books can be in rare cases be notable , but they need much stronger evidence than goodreads, youtube and another author's personal website. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing to establish how this book is notable per NBOOK. A search didn't produce anything either. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2022 (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. Delete votes just stated that the editor couldn't find sources while a Keep vote did find sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malik St. Prix[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches did not return significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 16:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found sources like [32], [33], [34], [35], and [36], among many many other sources not listed here (e.g. from WinnersTV, Diez, El Heraldo, YouTube, MBC Saint Lucia, Etelä-Saimaa, etc). He is clearly significant figure in St Lucian football. He is one of few St Lucians to ever play abroad, especially in Europe, and is in the top ten most capped national team players. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per sources listed by Das osmnezz. Meets WP:GNG. Indianfootball98 (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 16:37, 15 August 2022 (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 Halos. Editors who would like to consider a different redirect target can have a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alea (Thessaly)[edit]

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

Mass-created by Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs) in violation of WP:MEATBOT: non-existent village apparently invented by an ancient author in confusion with Alea (Arcadia) and/or Halos. Prod contested. Avilich (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Greece. Avilich (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page discussion at this article already indicated the correct course of action to take. This discussion is moot. It would have taken five minutes to follow that course of action instead of nominating the article for deletion and verbally abusing another editor. P Aculeius (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Halos, as the apparent error in Stephanus is already mentioned there. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is not suitable since there are two possible targets. Avilich (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such policy—many redirects could point to more than one target, but point to the one most likely to be wanted—and usually that target mentions the other one either in the body or a hatnote. Here the place meant by Stephanus was Halos, which we know as he was cataloguing places in Thessaly—not Arcadia. So if someone runs across a mention of Alea in Thessaly, the place referred to is almost certain to be Halos, not Alea in Arcadia. But for the sake of argument, if either place were reasonably probable, then the correct course of action would be to turn this stub article into a disambiguation page—not to delete it! P Aculeius (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Ficaia. We already have a disambiguation for the more generic search term Alea, which could (and should) be adjusted to explain the redirect. And as for the redirect having two targets: I doubt even many people are searching for the actual ancient Arcadia by explictily typing "Alea (Thessaly)" into the search field, and then get annoyed when they don't end up on "Alea (Arcadia)". I mean... how. --LordPeterII (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is not a consensus about the redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Halos. T8612 (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2022 (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 University of Oregon#Academics. As the AFD closer, I'm selecting the option of redirecting this article as only one Delete statement gives any deletion rationale (and that includes the weak deletion nomination statement). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

University of Oregon College of Arts and Sciences[edit]

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

No outside sources - Wiseoleman17 (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. --24.85.234.209 (talk) 05:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Shellwood (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've spent 10-15 minutes trying to find any reliable secondary sources providing significant coverage of UO's CAS and I'm not finding anything. There's a ton of information on UO's website, their blogs, and the independent student newspaper. Unfortunately wikipedia guidelines say that while student newspapers (if independent) are acceptable sources for verification, they have considerably less weight when determining an article's notability. As it stands right now, this article is basically just a mirror of UO's own website and isn't backed up by any reliable sources. Until there's more mainstream significant coverage of CAS I'll have to vote delete. PDXBart (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Oregon#Academics. Novemberjazz 02:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not individually notable.Deathlibrarian (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funke (2018 film)[edit]

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

No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. There are only four reliable sources I was able to find on the web (and they’ve been cite). Best, Reading Beans (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing found in search to support the notability of this film. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2022 (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 Ivory Coast women's international footballers. Clear consensus not to have a standalone; redirect acceptable as WP:ATD - plausible search term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Djelika Coulibaly[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found no evidence of the subject meeting WP:GNG. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While we also have WP:NSPORT, it doesn't seem to have specific rules for football (soccer). I find no sources about Djelika Coulibaly except that she plays football, which is not enough. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant coverage as required by SPORTBASIC. –dlthewave ☎ 16:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Ivory Coast women's international footballers per WP:ATD and because little substantial coverage is available to justify a stand-alone Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Spiderone. Giant Snowman 16:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

University of Oregon College of Education[edit]

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

Few to no outside sources. Not notable. -Wiseoleman17 (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. --24.85.234.209 (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Shellwood (talk) 07:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is insufficient notability for this college to warrant its own article. I do not see sufficient original content worth merging into University of Oregon. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. As the nominator is now voting "Keep", and the one "Delete" comment offers no rationale, I'm treating this as a withdrawn nomination and closing this as "No consensus". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles H. Lundquist College of Business[edit]

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

Few outside sources. Not a notable school. Info can be added to main article. --Wiseoleman17 (talk) 01:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. --24.85.234.209 (talk) 05:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Shellwood (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page being singled out for deletion when other business school pages are not: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haas_School_of_Business, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster_School_of_Business, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Davis_Graduate_School_of_Management, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_State_University_College_of_Business.

This seems unfair and may be someone from a competing business school targeting another school for deletion. Certainly the Oregon State business school is less of a "notable school" and smaller then the state's flagship business school at the University of Oregon.

If you are keeping other business schools on wikipedia, you should keep this one. 2001:468:D01:10:64D1:226:2270:703B (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon State's page can probably be deleted. UO's program isn't very notable. This article does have many outside references. 24.85.234.209 (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on further review I vote to keep. Surely not especially notable, but the college has a been referenced or quoted in multiple major publications on many occasions. I'm not sure if these quotes should be added to the article because they don't really add much to it but certainly this college has some national media clout. Both Nike co-founders attended the college. It was featured in Poets and Quants (endowment). Its then cutting edge facility was featured in an article by a major publication a few times too. I'll need to dig that up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiseoleman17 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Bueno[edit]

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

Non-notable minor political candidate. Only held hyper-local office, and coverage is minor and generally routine. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Libertarianism, and Florida. Curbon7 (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Andre🚐 03:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NPOL and there is not enough WP:RS-compliant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the coverage includes recognized RSes such as Reason as well as Miami Tribune. Running for commissioner in FL, meets notability. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 19:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL by a mile. Simply running for office doesn't satisfy any criteria, much less the more specific NPOL, and I fail to see how she even meets GNG. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles just for being candidates for county commission — even if she won that election, county commission still wouldn't be an inherently notable office that guaranteed inclusion in Wikipedia, because politicians at the local level of government are not all "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL. And no, just because a bit of run of the mill campaign coverage exists in the local media, where coverage of local politics is simply expected to exist, isn't enough to make her notable for the purposes of an international encyclopedia — her coverage would have to nationalize before she had a credible claim to being more significant than most other county council candidates. Bearcat (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page has a significant number of RSes and it appears as though this person is at least a mildly notable figure. On Wikipedia, it is our job to add and compile knowledge to make it easy for normal people to access it in a convenient way. Given the fact that this article has a lot of RSes, a significant amount of content and the individual would constitute a person that people would have interest looking up and reading more about given her extensive background and mainstream coverage, I think it would be a mistake to unnecessarily remove this page. Pulpfiction621 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources are either routine election coverage, local, or do not provide significant coverage (or all 3). Regarding your point of "it is our job to add and compile knowledge to make it easy for normal people to access it in a convenient way", I implore you to read WP:NOT; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate database of every single person who runs for every single office, nor are we a Who's Who. Curbon7 (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nazir McBurnette[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica Colucci[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NBIO. This looks like an effort specifically to create a promotional articles. Almost all the refs are misleading, mentioning her employer (Ozwald Boateng) but not her. The few that do mention her are very minor or mostly quotations. Lack of in-depth independent coverage. MB 02:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Canada. MB 02:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While she does seem to have done some stuff, we have no sources to support it. The entire start of the carreer section is (apparently) sourced to this, which does not mention Colucci at all. The only references actually talking about her (still not in-depth) are the Forbes subsite ones, which Headbomb's script identifies as only borderline reliable. The Fashionista & Esquire refs again do not seem to mention Colucci at all – nominator is right, this is very misleading. An editor might have known more than the sources say, but then it's WP:OR. Nothing else to be found, so delete. --LordPeterII (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my previous assessment (ugh why are we doing this again?!) and the fact that it's nothing more than paid for, non-notable vanity spam. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see how it meets WP:GNG. As mentioned by the nom, some of the refs in the article don't even mention her, but as per WP:NEXIST that doesn't overly matter here. I couldn't find any independant sources with much more than a passing mention. There's a little bit of coverage at https://www.forbes.com/sites/joanneshurvell/2016/09/28/women-who-dress-men-female-menswear-designers/?sh=5d454baa2dae but that's not sufficient to show notability. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed those from the articles. I'm not sure what point you're making with WP:NEXIST as it doesn't make sense in this context (though I agree she isn't notable.) Please read WP:FORBESCON though, because those sources are pretty useless. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned WP:NEXIST as the nom referred to refs that were currently in the article. Good point about WP:FORBESCON, as it further strengthens the argument to delete. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the coverage she has is not significant. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Aurélien[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rickson Augustin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vernus Abbott[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Willie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Joseph (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:35, 15 August 2022 (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 Netherlands women ODI cricketers. It is not substantially contested here that the kind of sources required by WP:GNG have not been found after two weeks of searching. That being the case, the "keep" opinions are so weak that they have to be discounted: they use arguments now rejected by community consensus, i.e., that playing at a certain level of sports automatically establishes notability. That the nominator is a blocked sockpuppet invalidates their opinion, but not that of the other participants in this AfD. Sandstein 09:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheraldine Oudolf[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:SIGCOV. The sole source is a statistical database only. Sistorian (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cricket, and Netherlands. Sistorian (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I found exactly 2 sources in which she is mentioned, I don't think this meets WP:SIGCOV. W C M_email 08:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bizarre nomination. Played in two World Cups, holds the Dutch record for best women's ODI bowling figures. Beeeggs (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to change my comment if you can provide sources. I suggested delete because after searching for sources I find 2 google hits. I did my own name and got 900,000. W C M_email 12:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I too had no luck on Google. I do not see what is bizarre, or even wrong, about nominating an article that so completely fails the significant coverage requirement. In my opinion, we must place emphasis on quality over quantity. I doubt if you will find Cheraldine in Britannica, for example. Articles about cricketers are fine if there is significant coverage because the player is well known or has accomplished an outstanding achievement, but to try and fill mainspace with articles like this is a waste of mainspace. The little we know about Cheraldine could be included in a list of Dutch players and that would be sufficient.

Sistorian (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Netherlands women ODI cricketers Must say I'm surprised at the lack of coverage in a simple search, so at redirect for now. If something is found please let me know and I'll reconsider. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sending international sportspeople to AfD without goes to show what we have become as a project. This player participated in two World Cups and has 36 WODI appearances. "I can't find any sources myself so I'll send to AfD" is not the way these things should be handled - the cricket Wikiproject is very good at finding secondary sources when necessary and prompted to do so. Of course more work needs to be put into research about women's cricket in general - but this is the nature of the sport. Bobo . 00:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bobo. Thank you for your comments here and at the Meston case. I have been reading WP:ATD on the deletion policy page and I am beginning to think a different approach is needed. I still need to do a lot of research to get my head around the site's policies, guidelines and advice essays but I do have an idea.

Take a case like Cheraldine where the article is three short sentences of basic information lifted from a single statistical database site. As it is currently written, the article definitely fails WP:SIGCOV. As I said above, I cannot find anything else about Cheraldine online. She is an experienced international player, though, so there must be information in book, magazine and newspaper sources. Those, I fully accept, will be difficult and time-consuming to find.

Suppose I tag the article with the notability template banner and then add it to a list of cricket articles needing attention? I leave it alone for six months and then, if it is still three short statistical sentences, I do a straight redirect to List of Netherlands women ODI cricketers as suggested by Rugbyfan22? No need to involve AFD at all and, as you have requested, the cricket project sees the issue by monitoring the list and has six months to respond.

I became interested in AFD after reading the Lugnuts/Lambert cases at the Arbitration Committee. From that, I know there is going to be a reaction to the stubs created by Lugnuts although there are concerns about AFD being deluged. I would like to help with the initiative because I believe in quality over quantity and I have submitted six cases to AFD in the last few days to gain some experience of the process.

That is where I am coming from. I do not think short "stubs" like the Cheraldine article benefit the site's reputation; instead, they are an actual constraint. A reader wants useful information, more than so-and-so is a Dutch cricketer born when and where who has played in ODI matches for her country. Articles like that convince the readers that Wikipedia is a waste of space and they go away.

I do not know if my idea is practical because it might be out of process in some way. I need to fully understand what is in process. I will be happy to discuss further, of course. Thank you for your suggestions which most certainly provided me with food for thought. Best wishes.

Sistorian (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say much more than that what happens at AfD is much more than just a single situation, and for one reason or another, it has been causing issues within the cricket section for many years. Some situations resolve and some don't. Comme ci comme ca. There are more editors out there than just Lugnuts and JPL. There is still so much scope for article creation within our project, and, should you feel the need to help out, or can add more information, our project is always needing more fresh contributors. Unfortunately this and the Meston case do not work together as a single argument - international women's and domestic men's cricket are two much different animals. As I say, much more needs to be done in the world of women's international cricket, but that does not make it an invalid subject for contribution. Bobo . 08:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Netherlands women ODI cricketers, per ATD. In the absence of significant coverage in secondary sources, that is required to demonstrate notability per BASIC/GNG, and nothing to hint that such coverage NEXISTs, we have a suitable redirect target for this BLP. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting by request
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Beeeggs. I have added her record to the article. Note also that the nominator is a blocked sockpuppet. St Anselm (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Netherlands women ODI cricketers due to lack of WP:SIGCOV for the subject to pass WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the AfD is surely invalidated by the nominator being a confirmed sockpuppet... Bobo . 08:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, this will give the cricket project a chance to find SIGCOV if it exists. JoelleJay (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2022 (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. It is not substantially contested here that the kind of sources required by WP:GNG have not been found after two weeks of searching. That being the case, the "keep" opinions are so weak that they have to be discounted: they use arguments now rejected by community consensus, i.e., that playing at a certain level of sports automatically establishes notability. A redirect closure per WP:ATD is also not possible because nobody has proposed a redirect target. Sandstein 08:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John West (cricketer, born 1861)[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:SIGCOV. The sole source is a statistical database only. Sistorian (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. Sistorian (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The “database source” in this case contains a significant prose discussion of West’s career - likely his Wisden obituary. This is often the case with Middlesex players and demonstrates clearly that anyone nominating articles sourced to CricInfo needs to click the link to check. As a result there is suitable coverage already and that’s before we go and look in a range of other places such as Middlesex histories. The nomination is, unfortunately, not using a valid rationale in this case. Shame that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a number of passing mentions - for example, one on the Notts website - and some details appear in an paper in Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, 15/1 by Keith Sandiford titled Amateurs and Professionals in Victorian County Cricket. Unfortunately I don't have access, but the snippet available in a google search suggests that there's a bit more detail there as well. He also appears mentioned several times in Cricket magazine and in an edition of Wisden, some of which is available online. This suggests that there will be more in other editions of Wisden. I imagine there's enough if someone has the time to suggest quite strongly that this passes WP:BASIC levels of sourcing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Square Thing, the Cricinfo discussion is anything but significant because it is simply statistics dressed in prose clothing. The only non-statistical information it provides, other than what is already in the article, is West having been on the MCC ground staff, which is hardly significant. I presume you could add the statistical information to the information box, as seems to be the usual practice. If you intend to expand the article using statistics only, albeit in prose form, then I do not think that will comply with WP:NOT (in the section labelled WP:NOTSTATS) and the article will still lack significant coverage because "multiple sources are generally expected".

If there is more information in histories of the Middlesex club then by all means include it. As I understand things, though, the article must cite reliable sources and cannot be left in a "before we go and look" scenario. I am still new to this, I must point out, so please explain if I am misunderstanding the process in any way. Thank you.

Sistorian (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination says The sole source is a statistical database only. That is patently not the case. Not only have you not looked to check if there are any other sources about West - which is strongly encouraged - you haven't checked the source which was in the article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It patently is the case when the half a dozen lines of prose consist almost entirely of statistics with words between the numbers. The case is well put by User:Wjemather below. The coverage is brief to the point of insignificance.

With all six of the articles I have nominated, I carried out a Google search and found nothing except Wikipedia, its mirrors, sources already in the article like ESPN, and other statistical sites which do not seem reliable. You have said before that there may be content in Middlesex club histories but I do not have access to such books. As I understand the significant coverage requirement, there must be multiple reliable sources and they must be cited in the article. Please do not assume I have not checked Google or the ESPN article. I assure you I have.

Sistorian (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but think if the first thing a new editor does is add six articles for deletion, they think something needs fixing with the project which they don't understand will take more than a batch-add of deletion discussions. There are better ways to handle content than adding everything that displeases you, as a new editor, to AfD. There are issues here which date back years, not just a month since you discovered the site and became au fait uncharacteristically quickly with deletion discussions and ArbCom cases. Bobo . 08:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. So playing in 86 first-class matches at the highest domestic level isn't considered notable? Right. Meets WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Isn't is also curious how someone with a month's history on here seems to be so involved with the AfD process... StickyWicket (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable if someone took significant note, if not then unfortunately no. That said, the British Newspaper Archive might have something on him. I took a brief look at this yesterday and mostly found information about another cricketer by the same name. I'll take another look at this tonight and see if I can't find something with a refined search. Alvaldi (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per StickyWicket. Sometimes WP:COMMONSENSE just has to be applied. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and procedural keep on the grounds that I have no idea what is in Wisden to add to the article, although those who have access presumably do. I believe issues like this need to be raised on WT:CRIC before adding to AfD on the spur of the moment. Bobo . 11:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the honesty, but asserting that you "have no idea" if there is anything worthwhile in possible sources is not a convincing argument. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had access to Wisden from somewhere, as I say, if you have access, feel free to add, otherwise really telling me that I'm wrong in giving others impetus to help out is counterproductve. My main point was that these issues are not taken to WT:CRIC first and need to be otherwise we get half a dozen delete votes from people who have nothing to contribute, and a fair number of contributions to the article in the interim... but that's happened many times and won't stop in a hurry. Bobo . 12:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As already indicated by BST, it would seem clear that the Cricinfo profile contains the entirety of the Wisden obit; since it does little more than summarise his statistics, it barely reaches the threshold of significant coverage. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For someone who played that number of games, and umpired an official test it is highly likely that GNG passing sourcing exists. His name is particularly common, obviously with tuna, other cricketers and other umpires in other sports so searching is difficult, but with what we have and what we know I imagine there will be GNG passing sourcing out there. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked into this some more and slept on it, I think there's a really interesting story here, but it's going to take some serious work to unpick all the strands and piece together all the pieces - at least two or three days worth of work and picking through newspapers and so on. And that's without access to old and expensive Wisdens. I will, hopefully, find time to do that work, but it won't happen for days if not a few weeks and it'll be quicker if nothing else comes up that is a higher priority. For that reason I'd rather keep the article for now at least. If the story doesn't pan out the way I think it will then it'll be obvious in six months time I guess. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Currently, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, as well as being a WP:NOTDATABASE violation. Normally, this would warrant deletion, but since Blue Square Thing believes they can improve the article, given sufficient time, I believe draftification would be a suitable compromise; either they can improve the article and it is returned to article space, or they can't and we don't need to waste our time with a second AfD in six months. BilledMammal (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There wouldn't be a second AfD. I'd redirect it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting by request. I'll let another admin close this AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I never found any SIGCOV on him in the British Newspaper Archive, perhabs I gave up to soon as there are ALOT of articles of people with the same name. This message board is the best I found. Of course, it can´t be used as a source but someone there did have better luck of finding some information on him so maybe someone here can use it to help narrow their searches. Alvaldi (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's in Wisden plenty of times, the problem is getting access to really old (and expensive) Wisdens. Note that I would suggest very strongly that drafting this article is completely against a long-term consensus at AfD which has been established since at least 2018 to redirect if nothing can be found. I think in this case there is so much evidence of sources existing that there's an argument for keeping, at least for a period of time, but would much prefer a redirect to drafting. If it's drafted it won't get worked on (I can absolutely guarantee that I won't work on it) and will be deleted in six months. If it's redirected it may get worked on, we retain the attribution and source history and we retain the links to and from lists etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing Redirecting it is also fine by me. Alvaldi (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there hasn't been a single delete !vote on this article and the nomination was by a sock-puppet. Was deletion review even mentioned at the time? Deletion review only gave us one !vote to relist. Was re-listing really necessary? As we've said, there's a lot ot unpick that we won't get done overnight. Bobo . 08:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really? How about you source this instead of obsessing over process. You do have a source don’t you? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically I probably care less for process than almost anyone else. "Process" gets in our way of achieving our goal. Unfortunately, as a project, we have reached an impasse as regards what that goal is. Some of us think the project should be horizontal, some of us think the project should be vertical, and in many cases, ne'er the twain... Bobo . 19:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t make needless procedural objections if you don’t consider process important unless you want to be accused of process wonkery. There is no impasse, there was a massive fuck off RFC that set a standard. Folks just arguing contrary are being disruptive and clearly throwing sand into the gears to slow down the inevitable cleanup. There was an arbitration request that reinforced the risks of that behaviour. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we were working to the same goal, no "process" would be needed. And an "inevitable" clean-up which will not happen without the mass-deletion of dozens of articles of players with scores of appearances, contrary to the goals of the project. A tragic indication of what we have become. Bobo . 19:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You make my point perfectly. Firstly you put the aims of your wikiproject ahead of the expressed desire of the community and a settled community consensus and then you have the effrontery to assume that I am working to different goals then you. Next you will be applying some silly label as a way of making it ok to ignore an opinion reflecting community consensus. Classy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the keep votes are based on policy established at an extremely well attended RFC that requires sports bios to have at least a single decent reliable source. As Noted cricinfo is a sports database (a bloody brilliant one) but turning statistics into propose is not an RS. The closing admin should note that there is an entrenched WP:Cricket contingent voting here who are clearly opposed to the will of the community but have singularly failed to provide the required source. wiki projects do not have the right to stick two fingers up to the community and force through non policy based outcomes by making frankly risable non policy based arguments. If the sourcing is not provided then the policy based outcome is delete although personally I think its high time lists of cricketers by team and period were created for these articles so we can simoly redirect them until the sources are found. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. Per the arguments from BST, BM, Alvaldi, and Spartaz. I agree that SIG sourcing needs to be shown to exist, but that redirection is viable until then. JoelleJay (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The guidelines are quite clear that a source that fails NSPORT but passes GNG can and should be kept. Some keep !voters are asserting the subject passes GNG (not NSPORT) which would be grounds for keeping regardless of the RFC, but I'd like to see some actual evidence of that if I'm going to !vote to keep. To say that "Keep because GNG" is "not based in policy" is simply false, but on the other hand, I'd like to see some evidence that he actually passes it. Smartyllama (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We know, because there are the odd snippet views, that there are mentions in Wisden. Beyond that, we know that he was on the MCC's staff for a long period - until way after he finished playing which is odd - and was given two benefit seasons by Middlesex, the first player to be given a second; both of those were after he'd finished playing as well. We know that players like this were profiled in Lillywhite's guides - for example, the other John West is profiled here. The problem is that we can't access those sources. And he umpired a Test.

There's something going on here and I'm 99% certain that a) sources exists and b) there's a story that's worth looking into. But it's going to take time and effort. I'm hopeful, per the discussion going on about access to sources at the cricket project, that we might have a way in to some of those sources - thanks to Spartaz's connections.

Can I show sources exist right now? No, I can't - beyond snippet views and the like. But this John West played 86 matches compared to the other John West's 52. He had two benefit seasons compared to one match. There's something there you know - the message board post that Alvadi found suggests as much. But there's no online sourcing.

So, if it has to be redirected, fine. I'll see what I can find and bring it back as a test case at some point if I'm able to. If people are happy to give it six months in main space, then that's fine as well - if I've found nothing after that I'll redirect it myself. If you really must delete it then go ahead, delete it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2022 (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.