< August 17	August 19 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that this article meets WP:GEOLAND based on solitary source of a government census website. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bakhra[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An unsourced stub of one sentence and an infobox created by Stop snoring, who is now blocked as a sockpuppet. Fails WP:GNG. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Bihar. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a town per this reliable source. WP:GEOLAND applies. I will look for more sources later. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:16, 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!} 05:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Some policy-based reasons for Keep or Delete woud be welcome. Just being a one sentence stub isn't grounds for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This place appears to satisfy GEOLAND. Listed as a populated place in the 2011 Census. There appear to be several other villages bearing this name, so moving to a more precise title may be warranted. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or as an ATD Redirect to List of villages in Saraiya Block of Muzaffarpur district, Bihar. Citing Wikipedia is circular (policy) and dictionary entries are included in What Wikipedia is not that is also policy. The source provided above returned "The requested page could not be found." Fails GNG per Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), and per WP:PLACEOUTCOMES, lacking any real coverage and certainly no significant coverage. Please note: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PLACEOUTCOMES states Populated place outcomes generally follow WP:GEOLAND, which means that they're usually kept if they either have legal recognition or can be shown to meet GNG through significant coverage. As I show above, this village has legal recognition through the national census and thus satisfies both GEOLAND and PLACEOUTCOMES. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Maybe you are responding to the wrong AFD. I suppose you missed the part about citing Wikipedia. Even if one was citing Wikipedia about Wikipedia it would not advance notability. However, this subject is about a village and not Wikipedia and WP:circular states: Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources since Wikipedia is considered as a user-generated source. That means this is an unsourced article so cannot have "legal recognition" just because it exists. The article is tagged as needing more sources. Notability is questioned with this AFD and an article cannot be "valid" (pass any notability criteria) if it violates policies and guidelines. The actual census2011.co.in site, I think you may find, is blacklisted. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, census2011.co.in, an unofficial copier of census data, may be blacklisted, but the official site that is linked above, censusindia.gov.in, should certainly not be. Entering "Bakhra" in the search field lists five villages of that name, including this one in Muzaffarpur district, Bihar, with a population of 7998. It seems to be you who may be commenting in the wrong discussion with your reference to WP:NOTDICTIONARY. This is about a village, not a word. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the sourcing is what your most concerned about, I've gone ahead and replaced the circular ref to a link to the official Census site. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:GEOLAND. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as it meets WP:GEOLAND.Zeddedm (talk) 08:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GEOLAND a populated place. Lightburst (talk) 16:22, 25 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!} 23:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Septenary (Theosophy)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Septenary (Theosophy)

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

This article has been unsourced since 2008 and reads as a personal essay. The topic is basically Theosophy gobbledygook. I get that fringe topics that are well sourced deserve to be on Wikipedia but this topic has no academic/historical coverage, nor any coverage outside of Theosophy. The only sources for Blavatsky's "Septenary" are Blavatsky herself and some of her followers. It's not possible to write an article on this topic with reliable independent sources. The way the article is written reads entirely as original research and I believe it should be deleted. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom., this reads like an essay with the only real source being "Keys to Theosophy". That is probably enough for deletion on its own, as the subject is clearly not notable. The whole thing is sourced to just 3 pages of one book of teachings in a WP:FRINGE area. However it is much worse than that. I looked up the reference, which is poorly made. I could not find the passage in the 1905 "Keys to Theosophy", it is in the 1889 edition (both available on Open Library). So then I started researching what the 1905 edition says to see if I could find the equivalent passage and discovered that even in Theosophy "The Septenary" is not a subject at all. Septenary just has its natural meaning of "sevenfold" and the subject being treated on this page is on the "nature of man" or the "constitution of man" which in Theosophy is apparently sevenfold. In the 1889 edition, the short section is headed "The Septenary Nature of Man". The very concept of this page is a huge misconception. "Septenary" is not a thing in Theosophy, and this is amateur philosophizing WP:OR. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Blavatsky at some point said that the nature of man is sevenfold; that doesn't mean "The Septenary" is a thing. XOR'easter (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and Sirfurboy. Lands squarely in WP:NOTESSAY. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with nom. Does not meet notability. Zeddedm (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom makes a great point, this fails WP:GNG lacks SIGCOV. KSAWikipedian (talk) 15:43, 25 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!} 23:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

York Region Administrative Center Annex[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, lacks in-depth independent coverage. This article is mostly sourced to (1) the architectural firm and (2) a YouTube video posted by the owner. The "awards" listed are not significant. Leed Gold is not an award, but a green building classification (there are at least 10k of these in the US alone). The second award is an "honorable mention" and the write-up on the third award is the award submission written by the architect. Searching finds little more. MB 23:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Canada. MB 23:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's analysis of the awards. You have a certification, an honorable mention, and then a press release. Not really anything that indicates lasting notability. I found this but that by itself isn't enough, IMO. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:09, 24 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!} 23:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

¿Por qué ya no me quieres?[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE. PROD removed with no improvement DonaldD23 talk to me 23:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Mexico. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails Wikipedia:NFILM. Sourced with a dead link leaving the almost ever-present IMDb that is not a reliable source. Does not appear to conform to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). -- Otr500 (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- my ability to search Spanish-language sources is pretty limited but I could find nothing. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom. Does not meet notability. Zeddedm (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is not notable. Lightburst (talk) 16:28, 25 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Tingle[edit]

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

Fails WP:ONEEVENT, as he is only notable for a single incident in which he was nominated for an award as a prank. Also fails WP:LASTING, as nearly every secondary source was published within a span of about six months in 2016 (the year in which the prank occurred) and there is no evidence the prank had a significant long-term impact. Also fails WP:AUTHOR, since he is a self-published author who has received little recognition outside of media coverage related to the prank. Also, the article relies heavily on primary sources, with his Tweets, Facebook page and website comprising more than a fifth of sources cited. Furthermore, the article cites numerous sources of questionable credibility, such as Jezebel, Salon and the Mary Sue. Baronet13 (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources generally discuss the Hugo nominations, etc., and don't seem to be problematic or contentious. Plus, he has recently gained more coverage by trolling Greg Abbott; it's also been announced that he has signed a two-book deal with Tor. I'll pop these into the article shortly. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEPas above there's plenty of other coverage in fairly decent sources to pass WP:AUTHOR Unbh (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Plenty of sources covering multiple events. This AfD is, at best, misguided. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tony Fox has pointed out this isn't a one-event issue. Among other coverage, he has a 5000-word profile in Vox: [1]. He also has two books coming out with Tor in 2023 and 2024 (Tor announcement: [2]); he is only going to get more notable. -- asilvering (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Hugo-nominated *twice*, lots of WP:RS reporting, just been signed with a "big five" publisher... De Guerre (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: yes, the Hugo award kerfuffle may be what Tingle recieved mainstream notice for, but long profiles in Vox and the Daily Dot suggest that he is not notable for just that event. Other stunts Tingle has pulled have had coverage in The Advocate and Vox again, news of his upcoming mainstream novel was picked up by BoingBoing, and Wired spent a couple paragraphs discussing Tingle's second Hugo nomination.
WP:LASTING isn't relevant because it's for articles about events, not people. WP:AUTHOR is an additional criterion to WP:BASIC (the text of WP:BIO explicitly says that "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included ... A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability"), and in this case I think there is clearly enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. The second half of the deletion rationale isn't really relevant to whether or not Wikipedia should have an article on Tingle as AfD is not cleanup – whatever its problems, the article is nowhere near so bad as to justify WP:TNT. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: obviously notable, and nomination is trying very hard to pretend otherwise. Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Chuck Tingle is one of the most famous self-published authors there are. He is literally an icon, and the idea that a famous self-pubbed author isn't worthy of a wiki page is ridiculous. Additionally, he has recently signed a two book deal with Tor. He's had Hugo nominations. Keep the damned page. 2A02:C7D:A1A5:E00:D183:98F1:27DB:1F06 (talk) 14:46, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade Policy Institute[edit]

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

This organization has no independent, verifiable, significant secondary source coverage. From the inception of this article's creation to several years after, there was only a single source used which was the organization's own website. Combined with the recurring removal of criticism for the wrong reasons (acceptable removal reason would be poor sourcing, the reason used was that it wasn't a neutral POV or opinions that wasn't valid criticism) and the editing of this article by people actively working in this organization or very closely affiliated (without disclosure) makes this come across at WP:PROMOTION, WP:COI, and generally failing all notability guidelines. PDXBart (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Cannot locate any WP:RS-compliant significant coverage of the organization. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing my !vote based on added sources and article improvements by Cielquiparle. I believe it now crosses the WP:GNG threshold. Sal2100 (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sal2100 (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Never even heard of the place. Splashmer (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Splash: The above comment was placed here by an IP editor using your signature. Can you clarify whether the comment is actually yours? Cbl62 (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A quick search does turn up some SIGCOV. E.g. this. Cbl62 (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article does not have the best coverage out there, but I think it has passed the bar and article now sufficiently improved per WP:HEY, so happy to support keeping the article. Delete - There are a few hits here and there but the coverage does not appear sufficiently in-depth to meet NCORP. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"A few hits here and there"? Are we looking at the same thing? I found hundreds of hits in Google Books. St Anselm (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient depth of coverage. MaxnaCarta (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the RS that Cbl62 found, I'm relisting this discussion for another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Per above, fails WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm a bit surprised at these "fails "GNG" !votes. (Let alone the "never heard of it" argument!) On the contrary, it does have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [3][4][5] I'm sure I could find many more as I trawl through the numerous Google Books hits. The other concerns in the nomination really have to do with cleanup and page protection. St Anselm (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely this does not "fail" to meet WP:GNG. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though in many cases the sources are older, including dating to c. 2008–2009 etc. This LONG time article (first created in 00:12, May 31, 2005) absolutely does not merit deletion. Always attempt a thorough clean up before deleting such a long standing article with numerous sources, including those meeting RS criteria, as well as those that might be somewhat less suitable. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 20:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per many others - the sources are subpar at best. They're mostly hyper local, run of the mill, press releases or otherwise not the in depth coverage we require to establish notability for any subject. Further, the keep votes are not compelling. The length of time an article has existed is irrelevant, we've had 15+ year articles deleted for being hoaxes, non-notable and a variety of reasons. Being longstanding isn't a qualification of notability. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't call Springer Science+Business Media "hyperlocal". St Anselm (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 15:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given a series of in-depth articles in The Oregonian, including the 1997 profile of the think tank "Cascade Policy Institute works to shine spotlight on free-market solutions" (50% direct/indirect quotes attributed to president, but 50% factual reporting by journalist Nena Baker), ~~a 2006 article "Think tank slips out of Portland to 'safer' Washington County",~~ and the aforementioned "Cascade Policy Institute benefits from secretive donor group but says it operates independently" from 2013 by Jeff Mapes; plus this 2001 Statesman Journal newspaper article about a public protest against a privatization conference hosted by CPI. Outside of Oregon, the think tank is also discussed by publications such as The American Prospect ("Clash in the States") and the Nielsen book mentioned above on Smart Growth Entrepreneurs published by Palgrave Macmillan. As for the actual article itself, it is indeed in dire need of an update, which I am happy to undertake. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main arguments against keeping the page seem to be that the group is a group that focuses on mostly local issues and that the RSes are in question. To address the first point, this is not the first page that I have seen that includes a group that only addresses local issues so this should not be an issue. The more important argument are the disputes of the RSes. There seems to be a lot of articles listed from The Oregonian which, as far as I know, is an RS. In addition, the other RSes do not seem to be too problematic. Quite frankly, I do not see any valid reason to delete this page since the purpose of Wikipedia is to preserve and spread knowledge of topics that people will be interested in learning about. Given the extensive mainstream coverage in Oregon, this is certainly a group that people will have interest in learning about and eliminating the page seems like an unnecessary destruction of knowledge. Pulpfiction621 (talk) 15:05, 17 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!} 22:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technical issue @Liz: Looks like this AfD template may not be transcluding properly, as it's not indexed by User:Cyberbot I/Current AfD's. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cielquiparle,

I relisted this discussion like I always do. This AFD is showing up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 18 which is, I believe, the pages that AFD closers look at. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've now completely rewritten the article, incorporating secondary sources (which it lacked when it was originally nominated) while keeping it factual. I've tried to keep the discussion of the think thank's policy stances focused on a few major issues, drawing on academic journal articles and books analyzing the actual impact that Cascade has had on the eventual outcomes. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been substantially improved. Sources presented are adequate under GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 22:05, 23 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. as there is a potential for the information to be sufficiently sourced within the six month Draft window, thereby solving the BLP issues raised. If they don't come to fruition, there's an easier outcome then. Star Mississippi 01:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephenie LaGrossa[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. Bgsu98 (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Pennsylvania. Bgsu98 (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added additional information, a tag, and a reference to help improve the article, so I don't think it should be deleted. And1987 (talk) 19:33, 28 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!} 21:30, 4 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!} 22:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist and noting a source was added between the time the article was PROD'd and then sent to AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly hesitant keep - generally don't feel that reality contestants are very notable as a whole, but three appearances on Survivor and multiple other activities covered by references seems to push her over the line. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I don't like this option either, but the current unresolved USA Network reality tv program Snake in the Grass (TV series) puts this discussion in an awkward situation: we don't know enough as of this datestamp to accurately assess sources, some of which are pending in the next two months. (this mildly resembles a current event) At this time, I'd be happy to assert Delete and Redirect to List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. That's a featured list and could use the best of sourcing found here. The independent sources already applied to this page are almost entirely about her personal life. It might say something about this subject that nobody's been posting here about the events of the first few episodes of SitG. This is a BLP article; any editor would be fully within policy to delete as unsourced controversial material the entire Survivor section, along with the first pararaph in the Personal Life section. This would leave the intro, three sentences about her family, and a bare mention of the new show. I suggest we draftify this long-time article for the next two months so if the subject turns out to get a big media bump as a Snake, we don't have to delete it. On the other hand, I'm still about deleting and redirecting to the series. Any direct detailing might go towards the husband article, since such sources are entirely about the wedding and offspring. BusterD (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've gone to the trouble of deliberately removing all unsourced statements in the body of the BLP in order to demonstrate in a pointy way Keeping in this condition isn't a viable option. Because I'm not trying to be disruptive, I've restored the unsourced material. BusterD (talk) 16:44, 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. Star Mississippi 01:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Joanne Elaine Coughlin[edit]

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

No indication that this case is any different than the myriad missing persons cases that, unfortunately, occur regularly. WP:BIO1E and WP:VICTIM apply here as the subject is notable solely for her disappearance and the circumstances of her disappearance are not particularly notable. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the nomination logic is flawed. Both guides mentioned above are designed to help editors decide between biographical articles (i.e. Joanne Elaine Coughlin) or event articles (i.e. Disappearance of Joanne Elaine Coughlin) and who ever created the events realised she was notable for one event and did what the guidance guided. To be specific WP:BIO1E says The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified and WP:VICTIM says A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article. (bold emphasis mine) So then, is the event worthy of an article? As the article looks a few minutes ago, perhaps not, we tend to want at least some impact years later, but as I found news from 2019 and just added it in, then that suggests to me that this is a notbale event, still making news almost 50 years later. See WP:SUSTAINED CT55555 (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:EVENTCRIT, as well as WP:NOTNEWS, per the second prong of the notability guideline. The WP:EVENT guideline helps us determine how to identify what should be excluded from the encyclopedia as WP:NOTNEWS. For this article, the Charley Project blog is the first of the four sources, and an archived page with basic information from the Ohio AG is the second source. Per the criteria, there is no indication of a WP:LASTING effect. In 2019, there was local coverage of her disappearance and the cold case investigation, but no indication that her disappearance has been a precedent or catalyst for something else or had a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance. The WP:GEOSCOPE also appears to be limited and localized, and there is no demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group, so this weighs against notability. The WP:DEPTH of coverage is also limited, as demonstrated by the available coverage (my own search has not found more in independent and reliable sources). There also does not appear to be much WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE of this cold case. There also does not appear to be wide-ranging coverage in WP:DIVERSE sources. Based on the guidelines and WP:NOT policy, deletion appears appropriate at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and Beccaynr. Wikipedia is not a memorial. While it is tragic the sources do not reach the criteria of WP:NBIO: On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. There are around 6500-7000 unsolved cases a year and over 200K unsolved murder and missing persons cases just in the US. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia is not a memorial (however, if her case is finally closed one day, an article would be warranted then, IMO. TH1980 (talk) 03:23, 21 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 Legend of the Five Rings#Setting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rokugan[edit]

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

I am afraid this fictional entity fails WP:GNG. My BEFORE failed to locate anything that is not a plot summary. Redirect to Lo5R (parent game) is probably best we can do here? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:42, 11 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 Games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Legend of the Five Rings (collectible card game) or Legend of the Five Rings per nom, merging the second ref possibly. There is no RS that indicates SIGCOV, ref 1 is non-RS and ref 2 seems to be a trivial mention. VickKiang (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Legend of the Five Rings#Setting, but only the sourced content in the "History" section. Reliable sources found in searches are generally on the Legend of the Five Rings and the various games using that setting as a whole, and just briefly discuss the nitty-gritty of the actual fictional empire of Rokugan in a passing manner as part of the overall discussion of the topic. For example, the various reviews and previews of the very recently released Adventures in Rokugan book mention the empire as the setting, but don't go into the kind of detail that would require splitting it out into a separate article. Outside of the "History" section, this current article is nothing but unsourced, in-universe plot summary that should not be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The topic doesn't appear to have any potential to meet GNG at this time. Merging the sourced content makes sense. TTN (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion as both Merge and Redirect had advocates and more than one redirect target was favored.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Legend of the Five Rings#Setting to form a consensus. Verifiable information can be added through normal editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:25, 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. Star Mississippi 01:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tradenation luxury goods scam[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS and the like. Just another run-of-the-mill instance of greed & foolishness that has little encyclopedic value but is top-shelf tabloid fodder. The way the article is currently written may be in violation of WP:BLP too. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Copvyio! Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that this reads like a news article, and a tabloid one at that. People aren't even convicted yet, just accused. I'm not experienced enough to be sure, but it might indeed also violate WP:BLP. --LordPeterII (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a run-of-the-mill crime and nobody has been convicted. LordPeterII is correct that this level of detail about the accused people and their family violates BLP policy. Cullen328 (talk) 19:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing about news coverage suggests anything out of the ordinary with this sort of e-commerce scam. No sort of lasting effect apparent - not helped by the fact that it's an ongoing case and no one's even received a conviction yet. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I feel that we should not delete it, but just to amend and rewrite the article into a more appropriate style since there are issues about the language and writing. The coverage and magnitude of the crime seems to be more than ordinary given the huge sum of money cheated and the fugitives' decision to flee, which lasted for weeks before they got caught. --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 04:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NelsonLee20042020: I see you are active in the area, if not on this article itself. I'm mostly concerned about the WP:BLP implications now, and because yeah we are WP:NOTNEWS. The list List_of_major_crimes_in_Singapore_(2000–present) does look a bit strange (as does List_of_major_crimes_in_Singapore_(before_2000)). If you compare that to Wikipedia's coverage for other countries, we have only the most extreme crimes for France, and mostly crimes related to the Mafia for Italy. None list e.g. any of the victims of rapes, or a significant amount of "regular" crimes which don't have their own article. Please evaulate whether this really is adhering to our standards – I think these list articles might need to be condensed down immmensely, just like this article needs to be deleted. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto the drug trafficker articles, although the consensus for those seems to be going the other way. Anyhow, Nelson is obviously very competent in researching and churning out massive articles, but I completely share LordPeter's concerns. Kingoflettuce (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 132.147.119.112 (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@IP editor can you please give a reasoning? You're not expected to vote "Keep" without giving a reasoning, afaik. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:07, 15 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!} 21:53, 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 no consensus , and none is likely to form here when the open question is keep or redirect. And if the latter, whereto. Since there is not going to be consensus for deletion of the content or the material under the redirect, this discussion can continue on the Talk page. Star Mississippi 01:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miraz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No WP:SIGCOV to meet Wikipedia's WP:NOTABILITY guideline. There are trivial mentions, but nothing to build an article that is WP:NOT just WP:PLOT details. Cannot be improved because there isn't significant enough coverage in reliable independent secondary sources that can provide out-of-universe context. Jontesta (talk) 04:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 04:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GScholar hits include...
Hinten, Marvin D. "Old Narnia Is True": Allusions in" Prince Caspian." The Lamp-Post of the Southern California CS Lewis Society 27, no. 3 (2003): 3-11.

NeshmyJeloud, Basim, and Hameed Mani’Daikh. "Myth in CS Leiws’s Prince Caspian: The Return to Narnia." [6] It's clear that this is a paper, it's not clear that it was actually published in a journal.

Hanton, Chandler. "The Tragedy of Caspian: CS Lewis and His Trauma." (2022). MA Thesis.

Boyer, Steven D. 2010. “Narnia Invaded.” Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity 23 (6): 30–36. Picks apart the movie adaptation of Miraz, among other things.

Louis Markos. 2010. Restoring Beauty : The Good, the True, and the Beautiful in the Writings of C.S. Lewis. Colorado Springs, CO: IVP Books. Multiple sections analyze Miraz.

That's enough for now. These are a smattering of things I find in Google Scholar and EBSCO; I don't claim that they're the best, but they are clearly sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources by Jclemens.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The_Chronicles_of_Narnia#Miraz. I'll AGF Jclemens analysis of sources and that there is WP:SIGCOV. However, the article we have is 100% fancruft (pure plot summary), with zero assertion of significance and pretty much unreferenced. While the plot summary could be retained for the proper article, as things stand, redirecting this to the plot summary in the man article (which has a section for that character, if brief) will be at no loss to the reader. I'd be happy to change my vote to keep if a section, even shor, on analysis/reception is added. But as long as this is just a fan-wiki level plot summary, a softdelete redirect (keeping the content in the page history) will suffice. Letting this fancruft remain without improvement is a disservice to Wikipedia, suggesting to people that we are no better than a fan wiki. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs work, but there are sources addressing both the suggested problems with WP:NOTABILITY and WP:PLOT. In addition to those listed by Jclemens, the current version of the article as well as the previous deletion discussion feature one secondary source each which has non-trivial non-plot information. Solution to problems which can be solved is not deletion. Daranios (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion, plenty of sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (possibly merge) to Prince Caspian. My recollection is that he only occurs in one the novels, so that the target should be that book, not the whole series. Material on the literary sources might be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct; Miraz is the chief antagonist of Prince Caspian and a merger or redirection to any other topic wouldn't make remote sense. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - In its current condition, information on the character should be included as part of whatever larger topic makes the most sense. If the above sources are in fact significant coverage and cause too much weight to be placed on the character, it can be restored at that time. The existence of sources does not inherently mean a separate article is needed, and the current condition of the article means nothing important will be lost in reducing its scope for the time being. TTN (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note Article has been expanded with IGN, NYT, and SFGate RS'es on Sergio Castellitto as Miraz in the 2008 film. None of the three RS'es I used were previously mentioned in this AfD. Jclemens (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus is that enough for you? I stuck to online sources so that you don't need to AGF about the extent or nature of the content. If it's not, what else would you like to see? Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens If you mean if this is enough for a rediect/merge to Prince Caspian then yes. As for the stand-alone article, I don't think SIGCOV is met. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge per Peterkingiron. None of the sources are really focused on the character, but maybe there are a few sentences to add to Sergio Castellitto / The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. Archrogue (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Prince Caspian - All of the sources I can see in searches, including the ones that have been added to the article since the beginning of this AFD, are simply plot summaries that recite his role in the plot (which is already covered in plot summary section in the main article on the book) or brief mentions of the character in overall discussions/reviews of the book or movie. The sole exception to this of the added citations is simply a short blurb announcing the casting of the role in the film. None of this is sufficient significant coverage to support an independent article. As, established above, the character only plays a role in a single book, that book would be the most appropriate target for a redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma: Did you also check out Milton, Spenser and the Chronicles of Narnia: Literary Sources for the C.S. Lewis Novels, pages 51-54, the comparisons of Miraz with Jadis and established literary characters of Spenser, Milton, and Shakespear? Daranios (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The full preview is not available for those pages, but yes, I did check out what was available in the preview as seen here. And I still hold that it is not significant enough coverage to support an independent article - that single sentence it is being used as a citation for is about the extent of it. It is certainly the best of the sources included in the article by far, as the other three are flat out useless as far as establishing notability for the character, but an article can't be built around a single decentish source, and that single sentence can be easily moved over the character list of the main Prince Caspian article. Rorshacma (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma: "The main elements that make Miraz a villain are his ursurpation and his refusal to accept the spritual, namely Aslan. Such rebellion and apostasy are both evident in Milton's Satan and his followers. ... Miraz certainly commits crimes against humanity and a family member. In a sense, this connects him to the rebellion of Satan..." seems not to be in what we already have. Neither is that the author thinks him an inferior villain character to Queen Jadis despite male gender often being equated with more power. Daranios (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorshacma: Did you check out Restoring Beauty: The Good, the True, and the Beautiful in the Writings of C. S. Lewis, especially p. 76? Daranios (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That source is OK, but honestly still does not have a whole lot of actual analysis on Miraz specifically that goes beyond summarizing his role in the plot. The text on page 75 and the top of 76 regarding Miraz is basically just retelling his role and actions in the book, and the only real piece of analysis on page 76 is the couple of sentences starting with "Miraz is a villain... not because his beliefs differ from those of Caspian, but because he desires to crush all belief to achieve his ends." As I said in my initial comment, there is, of course, discussion of him in overall reviews or analysis of the book and/or movie as a whole. But none of it is really significant coverage of Miraz specifically that demonstrates that he passes the WP:GNG in his own right, separate from the overall notability of Prince Caspian. Prince Caspian is notable and has many sources regarding it, but having some brief discussions of Miraz in those sources in the context of a wider discussion of the book does not automatically equate to Miraz being independently notable, nor requiring a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The question seems to be whether the sources provided by those advocating Keep are enough to establish notability for this fictional character or if the page should be redirected instead.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - The sources added to the article are extrodinarily trivial, a casting announcement and two reviews that mention the character in brief passing mention. The sources brought up in the AfD are stronger, but still fall short of meeting GNG. There's really not a lot to add to the article without relying on an abundance of quotebombing, which really doesn't make for good article content for a character. Prince Caspian itself is quite lacking, so it'd make much more sense to use these sources to bolster that article. It's not like it cannot be split out again if it later turns out the character can meet GNG and the weight of the character proves to be too much for the main article. TTN (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rather, what we have here is a general moving of the goalposts. The original nomination is so ridiculously wrong as to be either a WP:CIR failure or an outright falsehood. The parade of "Oh, but that's not ENOUGH coverage" combined with Piotrus' reneging on his pledge to change his vote if a reception section was added should be plenty sufficient evidence that there's not a single good-faith opposition to this being a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article I just looked at still doesn't have a "reception" section. Please get your facts right before accusing others of malpractice. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware the section title mattered. I assumed you capable of noting the added content involved critics reacting to the movie portrayal of the character, without needing the section title to be exactly and only titled "reception." Regardless, there's substantially more there now. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per Rorshacma. Agree that the coverage is either off topic or WP:PLOT. What little coverage is more on topic for the parent article about Prince Caspian. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Prince Caspian, the novel, is clearly notable for an article, and sources presented make that clear, if there were any doubt; but the characters are not themselves notable for seperate articles. There is no good evidence that Miraz is a subject beyond being the Prince Caspian novel character. I don't think merge is appropriate as Prince Caspian contains information on the character and the article would not be improved by the other information it does not contain (e.g. casting of the character). I don't object to a redirect to the Prince Caspian article, but it seems unlikely it is actually required. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:13, 21 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of animated television series of 2024[edit]

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

This is too far in advance to know with any degree of reliability, as per WP:CRYSTAL. Already deleted through a PROD earlier this year, but recreated again despite still not being sufficiently close enough to the period it relates to. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL and has no sources. JML1148 (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify Very likely to be an article eventually but way too soon right now.★Trekker (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. Lorstaking 16:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Shankargb (talk) 14:38, 21 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 Erickson Living. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Erickson[edit]

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

The article is written as an odd fusion of company profile and biography of the founder; I don't think this reaches either the WP:NCORP or WP:NBIO threshold. Ich (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ich (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Erickson Living: not finding any SIGCOV about the person, but the corporation is in fact notable. All of the RS in this article are about the business itself, with at most a trivial mention of John as the founder. There does appear to be some salvageable content in this article that can be merged, but care should be taken to comply with NPOV. House Blaster^talk 01:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with Merge, per House, as long as promotional content is excluded. When I read "Mr. Erickson and his family are dedicated to the study and promotion of healthy and positive aging in our society." sourced by Erickson School at UMBC, it is clearly derived from a company press release. We also refrain from being too formal. Adding the title "Mr." is unnecessary as if the subject is known by writer, or possibly works for the subject. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:02, 21 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 22:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neus Tort Gendrau[edit]

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

Non-notable ski mountaineer, did a before search and no third party source popped up. Doesn't seem to meet GNG. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 18:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, does not pass WP:BIO. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 18:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently fails wp:GNG and wp:SPORTBASIC. Nythar^T^.^C 20:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Luyet[edit]

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

Before search doesn't bring up third party coverage of the article subject, doesn't seem to meet GNG. No medal record either. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 17:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently fails wp:GNG and wp:SPORTBASIC. Nythar^T^.^C 20:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should this also include Véronique Ançay, who is mentioned in the entry and has the almost exact same profile? Superboilles (talk) 18:26, 21 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!} 08:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barcllay[edit]

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

Spammy article that doesn't present a credible notability argument. The same article (minus copyvios that were removed) has been deleted 6 times at ptwiki (see log). Most sources are blogs or gossip portals, and the few that aren't don't confirm her notability. Brasil 247 has been considered an unreliable source at ptwiki (see discussion), and her participation in their show was only as a gay person that was discriminated on her church in both cases. The reality shows she participated in are not relevant. The remainder of the "Career" section is just her releasing music, which is not notable in and of itself, just a singer singing. The controversies section is simply gossip too. —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 14:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Brazil. —Thanks for the fish! ^{talk•contribs} 14:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Previous AfD on this subject happened in 2020 under its previous article title (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sophia Barclay); its associated deletion review here might also provide some background. --Finngall ^talk 15:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is complete vanity spam sourced to gossip and PR as well as blackhat SEO. PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Previously at AFD under a different page title so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable...appears to be promotional. Nythar^T^.^C 19:13, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Echtler-Schleich[edit]

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

Before search didn't bring up any third party results. Doesn't seem to meet GNG. Feels like subject shouldn't have own article space. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 17:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. Did not medal outside of domestic competition (if medals are awarded there). No Olympic appearances recorded. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently fails wp:GNG and wp:SPORTBASIC. Nythar^T^.^C 20:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 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 procedural close. This is a redirect and belongs at WP:RfD. (non-admin closure) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laborare est orare[edit]

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

This page redirects to the Rule of St. Benedict, which it should not. "Laborare est orare" appears nowhere in its Latin text. "Laborare est orare" is another rendering of Ora et labora, which is where this page should redirect. Sinopecynic (talk) 17:03, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Roig Iglesias[edit]

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

Fails wp:SPORTBASIC and wp:GNG. Nythar^T^.^C 16:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nythar^T^.^C 16:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per nominator. Subject seems to fail GNG. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 17:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- With only one citations it fails GNG. Unable to find anything else. Lovewiki106 (talk) 02:12, 23 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 17:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Compagnoni[edit]

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

Seems like a non-notable skier. No medal record, and before search brings up no references to third parties. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 16:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. Could wp:PROD work here? Nythar^T^.^C 16:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have started to propose for deletion some of the articles created by the same account for deletion; I think it will indeed be sufficient for most of them. BilletsMauves^€500 17:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage not enough and fails WP:GNG. Lovewiki106 (talk) 02:13, 23 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 17:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Pasteur[edit]

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

Non-notable ski mountaineer, no medal record. Before search didn't bring anything up; doesn't seem to satisfy general notability guidelines. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 15:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and France. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Minimal search engine results. Nythar^T^.^C 16:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. By the way, this article's creator has created dozens, if not hundreds, of such perma-stubs... BilletsMauves^€500 16:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage not enough and fails WP:GNG. Lovewiki106 (talk) 02:13, 23 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 17:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naesketchie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per my previous reasoning: might be too soon, i dunno but the billboard article was surprising in that it appears to be nothing more than PR spam about Naesketchie and I'm surprised it was published. The rest are PR pieces from paid outlets/contributors/interviews. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Undecided) - The opening sentence of the article, nearly word for word, appears in several so-called news sources, such as [7], [8]. Also note how the Yahoo article uses the ungrammatical "uprising record label". This shows that seemingly reliable sources are recycling promo announcements, but they are still well-regarded publications. He has some more coverage like [9], [10]. So the business world knows about him, but in a rather unconvincing way. Hopefully someone more familiar with WP:NBUSINESSPERSON can chip in. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vents MAgazine is blackhat seo (ie. pay to publish and they do so without identifying it as such) and the Source online has a very similar problem, and it's also a contributor piece, not written by staff. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Might even qualify for G11.-KH-1 (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage not enough and fails WP:GNG. Yahoo is a press release, Medium is a bloging platform and Ventzmagazine is not reliable sources. Lovewiki106 (talk) 02:16, 23 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 17:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sandrine Clet-Guet[edit]

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

Non-notable ski mountaineer. No medal record, and a before search brought up next to nothing. Feels like subject shouldn't have article space. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 14:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. BilletsMauves^€500 15:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Nythar^T^.^C 16:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability. Zeddedm (talk) 08:22, 25 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 short stories by Alice Munro#Vintage Munro (2004). Pretty clear consensus. (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage Munro[edit]

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

Anthology of short stories. Yes, the author won a Nobel Prize in Literature. No, that doesn't mean each of her works is notable (see also WP:NBOOK). Arguably, many of her short stories are notable and we probably need articles on more than we have, but anthologies are just containers, and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Love Lost (book) (an AfD for another anthology of hers that ended up as a redirect), unless we can show that this anthology received coverage as a whole, related to the process of selection of the stories contained in it, it probably should be just a redirect, rather than (as currently), an unreferenced catalogue entry. (Note that regardless of the outcome of this AfD, I'll nominate Selected Stories for discussion here in a few weeks, unless it us improved by then). PS. Note that this collection just reprints stories published before. Her anthologies which contain original work are more likely to be notable, but this is pretty routine. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was created (by me) at a time (2005) when Wikipedia did tend toward the "any book published by a notable writer needs an article for directory purposes regardless of the book's standalone notability or lack thereof" approach — but we've long since tightened up on that approach, and now while the writer's article can obviously still list all books that writer released (even "best of" compilations), the book only gets its own standalone article if it can be shown to have a meaningful notability claim, and the WP:GNG-worthy coverage to support it, as its own independent topic. So this was a good faith creation under the standards that applied in 2005, but it just can't be brought up to the standards that apply in 2022. Virtually all of Munro's regular short story collections clearly pass the bar, but her "best of" compilations don't and there's little reason to expect that they would — "best of" compilations can generally claim neither noteworthy literary awards nor substantial critical analysis. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_short_stories_by_Alice_Munro#Vintage_Munro_(2004) per above reasoning. Very notable author, but not every collection of previously-published stories is notable, whether we are speaking of Munro or Hemingway. Notability is not inherited. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per El cid. pburka (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per El cid. The anthology does not have standalone notability or coverage. Samsmachado (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per El cid. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Literacy is in short supply here. This book is not an anthology, but a single author collection. There is nothing in policy or guideline saying that a retrospective collection of an author's work carries inferior notability. Despite what several voters here state/endorse, NOTINHERITED says plainly and clearly that it does not apply between authors and their work. Nobody hear shows any sign of having to assess the book's actual coverage, reviews, etc. That of course requires work, not simply beating one's own uninformed standards. VivianB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.149.176.25 (talk) 05:11, August 25, 2022 (UTC)
Merge or redirect to WP:PRESERVE. Even without notability these are a verifiable part of the author's bibliography. Archrogue (talk) 14:03, 25 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 17:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vojtech Pavelica[edit]

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

Subject doesn't seem like a notable military officer/skier. Did a before search and very little comes up. Feels like shouldn't have article space. No medal record SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 14:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Slovakia. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. No notable involvement in a military conflict nor significant achievements in his sporting career. ElderZamzam (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SPORTBASIC mandates: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." (emphasis added) This article fails the mandate. Cbl62 (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage to meet GNG can be found. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:23, 25 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 Justice Society of America enemies#Modern Age. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Sorrow[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The character appears to have no significant coverage in reliable sources, only unreliable fluff articles and otherwise minor mentions. TTN (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. TTN (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced content to List of Justice Society of America enemies where the character has an entry. Unfortunately there is not enough for the character to pass GNG. Rhino131 (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found a few listicles, but there simply is not enough coverage in reliable sources to prove Johnny Sorrow's notability. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of DC Comics characters: S in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Justice Society of America enemies#Modern Age, where he is already included with a description. Searching for sources does not turn up much outside of the above mentioned listicles and a few brief plot summaries. As he already has a full description in the main list of JSA enemies, that would be the preferable target for a redirect. As a sufficient description of the character is already present on that list, and this article does not contain any sourced non-plot information, I don't think a Merge is necessary, but the history will remain if anyone thinks there is additional information that should be moved over. Rorshacma (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one of the targets proposed above. No sources suggests notability outside in-universe, all we have are plot summaries. That's not good enough for an encyclopedia (an entity different from fanpedia). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Justice Society of America enemies#Modern Age. Article does not meet WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:23, 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!} 06:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ifeoma Okafor-Obi[edit]

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

Refs are profiles and interviews, event pages and company pages. No significant secondary coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO scope_creep^Talk 12:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there appears to be insufficient secondary support for WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability. My online search finds coverage of her as a spokesperson, not coverage about her. Sources in the article purporting to support text about "her family escaping the Maitatsine uprising in Kaduna in 1983", e.g. Washington Post, BBC, are about the massacre, and the other source is promotional content from her employer that does not support the text. Many sources in the article lack independence because they are either directly produced by her employer or are promotional content from her employer published elsewhere, e.g [11], [12], [13]. Beccaynr (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Beccayner, most of the sources used are secondary sources with number of supported primary sources which are directed produced by the creator through research. This is basically because the region where is is coming from is a developing country in Africa. For escaping the Maitatsine uprising in Kaduna, it is a factual reliable facts recorded by other secondary sources such as which you mentioned in your text. I understand that the reason for adoption of more references to the work was to give more credence to the page and not for promotional purposes, as the individual has no idea that such page has been created on her credit. She a humanitarian and philanthropist helping young people through her experience in her community, and this has earn her notability within her community. To my best of knowledge, the page qualified for a biography of notability. Hilspress (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hilspress Which would you say are the WP:THREE most significant secondary sources that cover her? -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I discovered that that most relevant part of the article with significant secondary sources has been erased. Hence affected the credibility of the page unlike how it was before the easing occurred. However there are still number of independence refs. And from my research, I also discovered that she no longer work with most of the organizations stated in the page, therefore citations from these organisations must have been enacted only for reference purposes. Thanks Hilspress (talk) 16:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't overly matter right now what's on the article, it's more a case of what sources WP:NEXIST to give evidence of notablity. So please could you point us to which 3 secondary sources you feel are most significant? -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
refs: 1, 7, 11, 12, 13, 30, 31 are significant independent sources Hilspress (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1 just states they are an instructor, so not significant or independant at all. 7 has a bit of content, but not convinced is independant if they were part of the show. 11 isn't much about her. 12 I couldn't see them mentioned at all? 13 at first glance looked ok but seems to be written by TEF and hence not independant, 30 is clearly a primary source (written by the subject and hence not independant), and 31 is just a church website and wouldn't be independant even if it talked about it. So overall I'm still not convinced there is sufficient coverage to show notability at this time. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am more convinced that those neutal refs being secondary to my best of knowledge is adequate, alongside other primary sources which are in accordance to Wikipedia ref policies. Indeed, I also feel that the page needs improvements which would be improved with time. Hilspress (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Beccaynr said, doesn't seem to be sufficient independant sourcing to meet WP:GNG. WP:PROMO doesn't count towards notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

there are amount of reliable secondary sources used for the references Hilspress (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an assessment of sources, including sources identified by Hilspress in the discussion above.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
1 Instructor: Ifeoma Okafor-Obi - John E Pepper Humanitarian (Procter & Gamble Alumni Network)	Per WP:GNG, "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. Okafor-Obi has been affiliated with Proctor & Gamble.		This appears to be part of a conference website, noting that she is an instructor; based on what I can access, it does not support the text in the article it follows, i.e. that she is "a Nigerian social entrepreneur and writer"	✘ No
7 Writing a New Nigeria / Meet the authors (BBC 4)	? These seem to be more in-depth than the typical author-produced promotional blurb.		Okafor-Obi is not listed as an author at the url cited in the article. A book exists, but I have not found verification of a connection to "the BBC writing competition" also mentioned on the Amazon sales page cited in the article, nor the homepage for the University of Nigeria (I also searched for her name without success) cited after this sentence in the article.	✘ No
11 Witness History - Maitatsine (BBC News, 29 Dec 2012)			This audio report interviews witnesses, begins with a focus on the leader and his followers and their beliefs, how the group developed power, how violence escalated, the involvement of the army and the death of Maitatsine, and the mass killing that occurred. There is also a discussion of local vigilante groups and the police. Estimated 4000 killed and no official acknowledgement of summary executions. There is no discussion of Okafor-Obi or her family.	✘ No
12 Nigerian Moslem Sect Uprising Killed Hundreds (Washington Post, 1982)			This source does not mention Okafor-Obi or her family. Similar to the BBC News source, it does not support the article text "Following her experience in Northern Nigeria and how her family escaped the Maitatsine uprising in Kaduna in 1983, an experienced that became a threshold of her humanitarian steps" beyond verifying that the violence and killings occured.	✘ No
13 TEF Director of Operations, Ifeoma Okafor-Obi’s Speech On The Strong Female Entrepreneur at Eloy Conference 2019 (Business Africa Online, 2019)	This is essentially a press release, reprinting her speech, e.g. "We are piloting a program to reach even more people with our UNDP partnership. We plan to train at least 10,000 each year." ; "TEF Democratises luck. The impact of our flagship programme is so far-reaching because we are gender and Sector agnostic and we chose thousands from across Africa." Okafor-Obi is the author of this promotional content.	website TOS: "4.1. Our Service includes the distribution of content supplied by other content providers such as non-staff bloggers, commenters and content owned by other providers that is published with their permission on our Service. Our Service is not responsible for the statements and opinions expressed by those content providers. Responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of such content lies solely with those content providers and is not guaranteed by BAO."	This is coverage produced by Okafor-Obi, promoting her employer. It is not secondary coverage by an independent and reliable source reporting about her or her work.	✘ No
30 Okafor-Obi, Ifeoma (2020). "Is This A Mirage in Nigeria?". Journal of Global Initiatives	Okafor-Obi is the author.	? I have not accessed this source.	? I have not accessed this source.	✘ No
31 Ave Maria Catholic Church	The article text states that Okafor-Obi is affiliated with this organization. Searching the website for her name does not find verification of the article text.		This source is cited as support for "She also became three-year president of Ave Maria conference of Society of Saint Vincent De Paul International in Lekki, Lagos Nigeria" in the article, and the source does not appear to support this.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Beccaynr (talk) 15:40, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Odumboni[edit]

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

Refs are primary, profiles, interviews, no real secondary coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 12:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly does not meet WP:Notability(Businessperson) or General criteria for a biography either. JamesKH76 (talk) 08:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:30, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Sounds and Lights[edit]

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

Raj Sounds and Lights

This film stub does not satisfy film notability or general notability. The one reference is an announcement that the film will be released. The film has been released, but there is no subsequent release coverage.

The usual action would be to move this article to draft space, but there is a long draft, Draft:Raj Sounds and Lights by a different author, but the draft has been declined, because it also lacks reception information, and so has no third-party coverage information, and it reads like a film poster.

This stub does not have enough information to need to be merged into the draft and can be deleted. The draft can be improved in draft space and then accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Karnataka. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Imperfect Boy (talk) 04:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andre🚐 05:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 08:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NFILM. Zeddedm (talk) 08:31, 25 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 Raneo Abu. Article can be restored only if the person has received enough independent coverage. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 11:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reina Abu[edit]

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

Not yet notable by WP:POLITICIAN. Her father is a notable politician, but notability is not inherited. Can't find substantial coverage of her as a candidate, apart from the routine press coverage given all candidates for national office. No prejudice against re-creating the article in a few years if she wins office. A move to draft in the meantime would also be fine by me, as an alternative to deletion. Storchy (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Philippines. Storchy (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose disagree with the articles being deleted. Even though her father is a well-known politician for national and local politics. In Batangas' 2nd congressional district, Reina Abu is a famous politician and candidate. Since other Wikipedia users can modify this page, I personally oppose its deletion. Maybe she can get elected the next time. However, for me. I'll keep the page. RealMeep (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. A WP:BEFORE does not reveal significant coverage. BilletsMauves^€500 14:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not WP:INHERITED. Whilst there is some coverage, it's run of the mill for a candidate, and WP:NPOL is not passed. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON, but this isn't a WP:CRYSTALBALL for who will become notable i the future. I don't see how draftifying would help. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:NOTINHERITED. No prejudice on recreation if she does indeed get a national office post in the future. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her father Raneo Abu as WP:NOTINHERITED. Fails WP:NPOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 09:48, 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 merge to Wrestling at the 2021 Islamic Solidarity Games – Results. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling at the 2021 Islamic Solidarity Games – Men's Freestyle 57 kg[edit]

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

Not notable enough, fails Wikipedia:Notability, while the quality of the competition in this sport was decent, the whole competition (Islamic Solidarity Games) isn't notable enough to have separate pages for every single event. you rarely can find coverage for this event in English sources. having separate articles for every single event doesn't look like necessary. it's 30 pages while just 1 can cover them all. we have less than 16 competitors in each weight. each page consists of one bracket (and another one for repechage) personally I suggest merging them all together to something like this Wrestling at the 2021 Islamic Solidarity Games – Results. we had the same discussion here about another wrestling competition few months ago Sports2021 (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Too many non-notable articles. Nythar^T^.^C 19:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wrestling at the 2021 Islamic Solidarity Games – Results; same solution as for 2022 Asian Wrestling Championships – Results. Simeon (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simeon, an article has to exist to be merged to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It exists now. Sports2021 (talk) 08:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to primary wrestling article looks like a good solution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 25 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

County collecting[edit]

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

This article has some references, but while the topic has attracted two news articles, but WP:GNG is a problem. The term is very rare, seems to be associated with the slightly popular term, the Extra Miler Club, and the two news pieces are rather short too. GNews gives a few more hits for 'Extra Miler Club' ("Man visits every county in America, ending in Ohio", etc. [14]). I wonder if this shouldn't be rewritten into an article about the Extra Miler Club; no scholarly source seems to acknowledge "county collecting" as a hobby/activity, but while the term "county collecting" is very rare, the activities of the Extra Miler Club have attracted a few more news pieces (for example, the one I link above, about "Man visits..", does not mention the term county collecting, but it mentions the EMC). Still, what I see is limited to a few tongue-in-cheek stories, nothing scholarly. Is this really a topic for an encyclopedic article? As said, I have serious concerns that the activity of "county collecting" is not notable, but maybe something here can be rescued somehow (I'd suggest a merge and redirect to the EMC article if it existed, but it does not...). Any thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Roadgeek may be a legitimate merge target, as there is certainly overlap in the interests, but we'd need a reliable source that discusses that. Barring that, a mention at collecting might be appropriate, assuming we can add some sourced content about other non-tangible collections. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good find, the topics do seem to be closely relatred. A merge can be considered. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I am not necessarily advocating for a merge to either of these topics; rather, they are proposed as alternatives to deletion if needed. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This may be a niche/obscure hobby, but it has existed since the 1950s at least. Adding more sources. Also on a personal note, I'm semi-retired from wikipedia and feel strongly enough about this topic to try and salvage the article.--T1980 (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@T1980 I will be looking forward to your improvements. Do you have an opinion re merger with roadgeek? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:04, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus I don't support a merger, since despite overlap in interests, there are elements of County Collecting and road tripping which are mutually exclusive.. particularly since a number of counties are accessible only by boat or airplane, and for ones that are not, road travel is obviously more convenient from a logistical standpoint than going to each individual county by other means. I've never heard the term "roadgeek" before, even though I more than qualify for being one. If any merger is done, I would recommend the merged article title undergo a name change to something that gets the gist across more easily and foregoes the uses of slang/colloquilisms. --T1980 (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus How about listing it on a new article something along the lines of "Niche travel hobbies" ? It could include other mentions of other ones like highpointing (visiting the highest elevation in all 50 states/7 continents, etc.) traversing every highway in a particular region, visiting every national park, tri or quad-point boundaries (Four Corners USA, German/Czech/Polish border) geographic centers/extreme points etc. T1980 (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@T1980 The question is WP:GNG. Is Wikipedia the right platform to discuss all niche travel hobbies? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I first heard about county collecting in the regular press decades ago. It has been mentioned on "Jeopardy!" and on the Tonight Show. One does not have to intend to visit every county to be a county collector. Anyone who keeps track of their visited counties is a county collector. That is tens of thousands of people, at least. The mob-rule web site has over 7700 members who have enrolled and listed their visited counties. That is only a fraction of the people who keep track of their counties. The FB page for Extra Miler has almost 500 members, a much greater number than its paid membership. I will continue to work to improve the article. Bellczar (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
500 FB members does reinforce the extreme nichiness of this. I'll be looking fwd to more sources, as so far we have only a few passing newspaper mentions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are guilty of confirmation bias. You took note of the FB group with 500 members and ignored the web site with 7700 registered users. Bellczar (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7.7k is still a pretty small number, IMHO. Subjective, of course, it's not like we have any reasonable metrics. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge to the roadgeek article. They're distinct hobbies. Just to add to the additions to the article, Ken Jennings covered the phenomenon in his 2012 book Maphead: Charting the Wide, Weird World of Geography Wonks along with other sorts of geographic collecting. Imzadi 1979 → 23:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979 Can you link to the page where he does this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to the efforts of several editors, the article now has a long list of sources and IMO easily meets WP:GNG. An article covering both the hobby and the Extra Miler Club seems sensible, though AfD isn't the place to discuss what the article should be named. And roadgeeking is a different hobby entirely - there's almost certainly some crossover, but it would be like merging the roadgeek article into railfan because they both cover ground transport hobbyists. (For full disclosure, county collecting is one of my many hobbies, as are the other two I mentioned; I'd keep an article on any topic with this level of coverage, though.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:16, 24 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 11:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abbasbeyli[edit]

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

No settlement named Abbasbəyli seems to exist near Saatlı (city) (there is another Abbasbəyli far away). The given coordinates 39°57′N 48°22′E / 39.950°N 48.367°E / 39.950; 48.367 point to an expanse of farmland. It's one of mass-created stubs by Dr Blofeld based on GeoNames, and later "improved" by Carlossuarez46. My research shows that a thing called Abbasbeyli necropolis and settlement (XI-XIII centuries), ... considered ancient historical monuments of the [Saatlı] region. [15] does exist, but nothing more than that. No such user (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. No such user (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nom. Zeddedm (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given it can’t be confirmed that a settlement exists. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:17, 25 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mahabang Parang National High School[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Proposed deletion was made by User:Bungle.

PROD reason is as follows: As per WP:NSCHOOL, no school is assumed notable and must provide referencing to satisfy WP:GNG. No indication this institution is notable

As this is a procedural nomination I am neutral on the matter. Lenticel ^(talk) 09:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 09:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons I outlined in the PROD rationale, which hasn't changed and the article remains the same. @Lenticel: It's perhaps worth pointing out that I was the one who proposed the PROD, not contested it (as it sounds like I was the one who opposed it), so you may want to amend the AfD rationale or clarify. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bungle: yeah that was poorly worded. I've clarified the nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to it not showing any notability, so what if it's near a church organization? Also, conflict of interest as the article creator stated on his profile that he studied there. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 18:30, 22 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 11:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Rey[edit]

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

Not yet notable by WP:AUTHOR, with no substantial coverage yet in reliable sources. Her shortlisting for literary awards in recent years suggests that that might change, so no prejudice against re-creating the article in a few years if coverage improves. A move to draft in the meantime would also be fine by me, as an alternative to deletion. Storchy (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, and New York. Storchy (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that there's also a notable Spanish author named Aurora Rey Aragón. Don't confuse these two! pburka (talk) 14:19, 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 all. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Maccabiah Games medal table[edit]

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

Not too long to be included in the main Games article. But not enough material or notability to merit its own article. Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all this as you suggest. Has there been some push back? Why are you nominating these for deletion if the contents should be kept? Please do not further clutter AFD. Thincat (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment they should have been nominated together with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Maccabiah Games medal table - i noticed it after the discussion had ended. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the medal count sections of the relevant parent articles. The medal count sections of 2001 Maccabiah Games and 2005 Maccabiah Games can be expanded by the merging the 2001 and 2005 medal counts (one problem with both 2001 Maccabiah Games medal table and 2005 Maccabiah Games medal table though is they are both affected by link rot, so this will need to be fixed during a potential merger). 2013 Maccabiah Games medal table isn’t affected by link rot, but also would need to be merged and redirected. Fats40boy11 (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per all the logic above. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 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 redirect to Bobsleigh at the 1988 Winter Olympics – Two-man. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

José Tamés[edit]

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

Lacks wp:SIGCOV, fails wp:SPORTBASIC (points 1 and 5), also fails wp:GNG. Nythar^T^.^C 08:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. Nythar^T^.^C 08:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bobsleigh at the 1988 Winter Olympics – Two-man - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Bobsleigh at the 1988 Winter Olympics – Two-man. WP:SPORTBASIC mandates: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." (emphasis added) This article fails the mandate. Cbl62 (talk) 19:12, 24 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!} 22:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Spagnoli[edit]

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

Lacks wp:SIGCOV, fails wp:SPORTBASIC (points 1 and 5), apparently hasn't won medals. Nythar^T^.^C 07:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nythar^T^.^C 07:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 07:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have expanded the article. He won a medal at the Mediterranean Games and three national championsips. Was also awarded by Italian National Olympic Committee. --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on above expansion by Kasper2006. Lovewiki106 (talk) 02:31, 23 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 that there isn't sufficient sourcing to establish notability beyond her candidacy. She did other things that were noted, but they do not appear to add up to biographical notability. Star Mississippi 01:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Rita Epik[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Only notable achievement is winning one Turkish contest which would have led to representing the country at the Eurovision Song Contest, however this participation failed to materialise. All relevant material is covered on the Eurovision Song Contest 1979 and Turkey in the Eurovision Song Contest articles, so a standalone article is unnecessary. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Turkey. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Grk1011 (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm really saying the same thing that was said at the last AfD by someone else. There is an article about her in the Turkish Daily News that also talks about her opening a school in Izmir, which makes her notable mostly for one event, but also for a second event. There is an essay WP:NOTBLP1E that carefully explains the importance of this distinction. A musician in izmir. (2007, Jul 13). Turkish Daily News Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/musician-izmir/docview/328668696/se-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CT55555 (talk • contribs) 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand your arguments here. I am unable to verify the newspaper article you included, but assuming good faith there. To counter your assertion however, how exactly is opening a music school considered a "notable event"? There are lots of individuals who have opened schools in the past and will do in the future but I wouldn't count the majority of them as notable enough to be included in Wikipedia unless they achieved other things in their career. Having not accessed the article in question I can't judge its framing, but if it's based around her prevented participation at Eurovision and then what they did afterwards, would that not continue to fall under WP:BLP1E, as it would then be an extension of the single event to which they would be considered a notable individual? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about her music. Eurovision is mentioned once, over three sentences. In summary, the short article is about her song Thalassa, and how the song notes the cultural similarities between Greece and Turkey. Then about her church attendance and how it is limited by her music. Then her education, guitar lessons. Three sentences then mention Eurovision. Then her university education, her return to Turkey and the opening of the music school.

So she is notable for at least two events, which is why BLP1E does not apply. I really encourage reading of the WP:NOTBLP1E essay, it is just an explanatory essay, but it specifically about this type fo scenario.

To answer, "How is opening a music school considered a notable event?", it's because it made the news.

By the way, ProQuest is available through the wikipedia library, which is free to use for most editors, so you probably have the ability to access this article and all the wikipedia library and ProQuest articles, I would recommend it. CT55555 (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, my search of google books found that she also took part in a protest/concert in 1987. I've added that in. This further rebuts the "one event" thing. Of course the other events are minor, lacking significant coverage, but a careful reading of WP:BLP1E I think clearly shows that this is enough to rebut. Again, referencing the WP:NOTBLP1E that takes editors through the logical steps of how to get to this conclusion. CT55555 (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these events are particularly notable though. Wikipedia:Notability (people) requires a lot more to establish notability than just a couple things that were reported by the press in passing. Heck, there are even articles about me in the press but I'm definitely nowhere near deserving of an article. While subjects that did notable things in the past can be hard to find sources for, Maria Rita Epik is still alive and it is clear to me by the lack of modern sources that she has remained "a low-profile individual", which is one of the WP:BLP1E criteria. Grk1011 (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about the BLP1E criteria is that all three have to be met for it to apply. And one of them is only being noted for one event. In the context of her being noted for at least three events (singing competition, protest concert, opening school), BLP1E is a distraction. CT55555 (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, which is why I pointed out that none of the other events appear to meet notability guidelines, only the Eurovision appearance that did not materialize. Grk1011 (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I beg you to read WP:NOTBLP1E, I could copy and paste it here, but it says it so well. I'm at risk of bludgeoning if I keep saying this, but it seems clear you either didn't read it, or disagree with it and if that is the case, please be specific, because it so exactly deals with this scenario.

In addition to that, indeed her opening of a school, her singing at a protest are not individually notable events. That she is associated with these three events add up to notability for her. I put it to you that you ought not to keep saying that she is only notable for one event when I have clearly communicated three events that made books and news. I hope that I've written this sufficiently clearly that I don't need to repeat it again, so I'll avoid doing so and step back here, give space to others. CT55555 (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're latching onto my initial citing of BLP1E, but I clarified above that she does not even appear to meet the standard notability criteria for people. The Eurovision event was just the best redirect target if it came to that, given that it appears to be her most notable endeavor to this day. Grk1011 (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude talk 03:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: the last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 07:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a page created in October 2011 in the first 24 hours of page creator User:Marcoliinoo's wiki-career. User:Marcoliinoo hasn't edited since 2019. There's zero claim of significance or importance in this article, and certainly nothing in presented and found sourcing. Since nobody's mentioned this, here's the subject's current CV (taken from her own school's website). While it's clearly connected, we can be reasonably assured it's about the same subject and possibly what the subject wants said about herself. EVEN IF (for the sake of argument) we were to completely concede the subject has said accurate, provable things about herself, these things don't meet the threshold for WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:ENTERTAINER. She doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC. A reasonable BEFORE doesn't really find anything better than her own CV either. There's really not a single event (or set of events) which would render the subject notable (she didn't get to compete in a notable entertainment contest from 40+ years ago? please...). The collection of very worthy honors bestowed on this apparently dedicated and hard-working human being don't by themselves provide notability. And that's if we concede sources. As it turns out, WP:NOTE does not permit us to assume good faith on sourcing, the pedia has had eleven years to find better sourcing, and the sourcing provided and found doesn't pass the bar for GNG (in my opinion). BusterD (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the GBooks results seem to indicate the possibility of support for WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability (e.g. a 2012 book stating "Famous people of the present-day Levantine community in Turkey include Maria Rita Epik" at p. 256), but my search online and at the WP Library has not found substantially more than what is in the article, which does not appear sufficient to support any notability guideline at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 22:05, 21 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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 09:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Mother of All Talk Shows[edit]

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

Reviewing the sources here, all the third-party RSes cited are either passing mentions or don't name the show itself at all. There's no evidence of notability independent of the host George Galloway himself. As such, I redirected to the host. This was objected to, so I'm putting this up for delete and redirect - unless there are in fact find good sources to the standards of WP:RPRGM, which requires general notability - David Gerard (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Radio, Russia, and United Kingdom. David Gerard (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Same situation as with The Chris Matthews Show (not independent of Chris Matthews), Tucker Carlson Tonight (not independent of Tucker Carlson), The Jim Jefferies Show (not independent of Jim Jefferies), etc., etc. For many more such examples, see Category:American television news shows by decade and subcategories. This shows that the community tends to prefer having such talk shows as separate articles, likely because it has distinct advantage as regards thematic infoboxes, categorisation, etc. Sourcing can certainly be improved, and this for example is certainly not a "passing mention". — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It is literally a passing mention of the show itself, it's Galloway mentioning it in passing in an article about Galloway. It contains no information about the show beyond it existing. Do you have any RS coverage of the show itself? - David Gerard (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  In case you didn't read it, the entire article is about Galloway as talk show host – about the show's beginnings, about its growth, about the topics discussed.
  so you agree, it's about Galloway and not about The Mother of All Talk Shows, then, and supports the existence of the host's article and not the non-notable subtopic at hand here - David Gerard (talk) 10:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Sourcing quality is typical for show articles on Wikipedia as you can easily check. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  you mean, inadequate and not up to Wikipedia standards? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is considered a bad argument in notability discussions - David Gerard (talk) 10:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, and that's why I responded as weak keep – the subject passes GNG in my view and only needs improved sourcing. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
so, do these sources actually exist? 'Cos the ones on the article aren't showing the notability of the show - David Gerard (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If they showed it, we wouldn't be here. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do sources clearly showing its notability actually exist? So far you're appealing to hypothetical sources you're not producing - David Gerard (talk) 10:51, 4 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!} 21:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Kashmiri's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 07:24, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vrithakrithyilulla Chathuram[edit]

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

Didn't find any reliable sources and reviews to show why this film is notable. Doesn't meet WP:NFO. Honestly surprised it lasted this long. Imperfect Boy (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, India, and Kerala. Imperfect Boy (talk) 07:11, 11 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!} 07:19, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hedley Bunton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO. Unreferenced and could not find significant coverage including in Trove. Last AfD was 16 years ago. LibStar (talk) 06:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Cannot find any sources to establish notability. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, China, and ~~Australia~~. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(with some regret)Delete -- I would want to hear a lot more about what he achieved during his missionary service in Canton before I accepted that he was notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on a single, primary source. I checked newspapers.com, finding this [16] thorough obituary and one other very sparse one. Unless someone can trawl the relevant newspaper or library archives in-person I doubt we'll be able to meet the GNG for this subject, although there is a chance it could be met. Toadspike (talk) 17:41, 23 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 00:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teal Drones[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP, lack of in-depth coverage in independent source. Most of the refs are press-release type "article" or other information provided directly by the company. MB 05:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Technology, and Utah. MB 05:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, no good sources. ––FormalDude talk 18:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There doesn't appear to be any sources that meets NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:52, 22 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 Procedural close. Wrong venue, procedural close/withdraw with consent from filer. (non-admin closure) Sennecaster (Chat) 05:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Joey and the Pencilcartoons[edit]

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

Wrong namespace, whoops. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WannurSyafiqah74 Think this is the incorrect venue. AFD is only for articles in mainspace, please go to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion instead. Procedural close? Justi yaya 05:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. WannurSyafiqah74 (talk) 05:38, 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 merge to Karikku. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thera Para[edit]

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

Insufficient significant coverage. No reliable sources found on a WP:BEFORE. Most of the sources are from YouTube. Fails WP:GNG Imperfect Boy (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Webcomics, Entertainment, Internet, India, and Kerala. Imperfect Boy (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Karikku. The Karikku platform has a lot of coverage, but Thera Para is only ever mentioned as a sidenote. Like "Karikku is famous, they made many things including Thera Para". But notability is not inherited (at least I remember that, someone kindly point me to the relevant policy or essay!), and so a standalone article is not warranted here. But since Thera Para is Karikku's most famous production, it should maybe be a subsection in the article. --LordPeterII (talk) 18:44, 11 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!} 04:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Karikku. There are like 3 sources that seem to be alright to have a paragraph or subsection. SWinxy (talk) 02:57, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Browns Crossing, Indiana[edit]

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

The only source I can find that says anything about this is this reference in a book on rail lines in Indiana which identifies it as a point on the old PRR line. I can find nothing identifying it as a real settlement. Mangoe (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, I really thought I would be able to find something but I can't. I went to the county website and went through the land ownership database and everything in Browns Crossing says that the addresses are in Martinsville, IN (Example). Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 07:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: As a native Hoosier, I'm aware of this region, but admit that there seems to be a lack of many secondary sources about it.--IndyNotes (talk) 17:26, 23 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 03:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bluffs, Indiana[edit]

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

Here we have a puzzle, because the place labelled as "Bluffs" on the topos is unquestionably a subdivision built in the late 1950s. As such, it has no claim to notability. "The Bluffs" is, on the topos, a physical feature just north of the subdivision, with no structures to speak of on it until it becomes the site of some sort of construction materials business. The answer to the puzzle, however, is found on p. 185 of the cited county history, because after talking about this early settlement, it finishes by saying "The town began to die about 1840. Nothing is left of it now." That was in 1884, so it's apparent that there's no connection with the later subdivision other vague proximity. Mangoe (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quick look in the Indiana papers for 1821-1845 on Newspapers.com extended shows nothing about the early settlement. BBQboffin (talk) 18:43, 22 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 03:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of United Kingdom MPs who only sat in the 32nd Parliament[edit]

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

Similar to the recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United Kingdom MPs who only sat in the 29th Parliament which recently was closed as deleted, these two articles are INDISCRIMINATE NECC. TartarTorte 01:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and United Kingdom. TartarTorte 01:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the exact same reason as for the 29th Parliament. Ajf773 (talk) 23:40, 24 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 01:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Katoucha Patra[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and South America. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:17, 22 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Midtowne Shopping Center[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Sources are routine local coverage of a WP:MILL shopping center. MB 00:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Arkansas. MB 00:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The shopping center is notable for solidifying the name "Midtown" for the Midtown neighborhood in Little Rock. I added this fact and citation. I also added more to the history section and included more references. Many of these references are hidden behind a paywall (which I noted using the (subscription required) template). I believe residents of Little Rock should have an article they can read for free to be able to learn about notable structures in their city, especially structures that influenced the name of a prominent neighborhood, and this article provides that. This is not a run-of-the mill shopping center, as it established the name Midtown, which is a substantial chunk of area in Little Rock that includes the state's largest hospital system (UAMS) and Park Plaza Mall, as well as Midtowne Shopping Center. Spongeworthy93 (talk) 21:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a very generic power center, and it didn't establish anything but other generic businesses found in or near every generic power center being named 'Midtowne' (or being completely normal people and taking the name 'Midtown' instead because the British never contested any Arkansan land claims, and the name l~~ong pre-dated the GPC~~ was pressured onto the community because of egos). The hospital, Park Plaza, and War Memorial Stadium are much longer established here; this place merely brought a bunch of chain stores to the area, and that's it. Nate • (chatter) 02:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just chain stores--I will try to add more about the local stores and restaurants at Midtowne shortly. Spongeworthy93 (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To the above; please don't do 'revenge PRODs' from an article I contributed on just because your article is nominated and I disagree with you. It's not appropriate. Nate • (chatter) 03:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I clicked on your name to learn more about you, then found Pledge drive, which is redundant and would fit better (with your contributions included) in the Telethon article. Nothing personal. Spongeworthy93 (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Routine coverage in gnews of routine events happening at the center. LibStar (talk) 06:31, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Grand Lodge Hotel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There are absolutely zero acceptable secondary sources on this hotel that I can find. None of the sources on the article are secondary sources. Previous AfD conversation had arguments that there are "300 search results" but a flurry of results for websites that are hotel booking sites or similar are not grounds for notability. Although it's argued this is a prominent structure, it completely fails NBUILD's guideline of "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability". PDXBart (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it's on the National Register of Historic Places for Washington County, but I haven't dug enough into the historical districts to see if it's included there; would be notable if it was, if not, I don't find many sources, delete. Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be within the boundaries of a historic district: [17]. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While the Grand Lodge does not appear to be on the registry of historic buildings it is well known throughout the history of Forest Grove. This is a large part of the history of this area. This article needs to be kept and updated. I am currently researching the Grand Lodge and I will share my sources once I have completed my research. While modifications to this article need to be made the deletion of the Grand Lodge would be a loss to historical and paranormal researchers. 2601:1C0:6C03:1050:DDD7:9AC0:7608:9BB0 (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Wikipedia prohibits original research. Unless you are using published sources, your research does not meet our guidelines. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just edited to add a citation from the Oregonian. It's just one secondary source, though. Mattsjc (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern,

My wife and I were driving past this amazing lodge and gardens and it peeked my interest in what it was. Learning it's history was what I was after and I was pleased to find :Wikipedia had some interest in it as well. Please don't delete this! Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:6100:5F10:BC79:E4AD:5B34:CAC0 (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's coverage in Pamplin Media with an article about the Lodge turning 100 here; KGW covered renovations in 2017 here; Patch covered plans for the venue to become a concert venue in 2021 here, as did Portland Monthly magazine here, Oregon Live here, and Willamette Week (newspaper) here; and 1859 did a profile here. And that's all before even accessing Newspapers.com or going through mentions (all articles listed above are solely on the subject). --Kbabej (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough sources have been found and added to justify keeping per above discussion, with still more to follow (as it takes a long time to go through 100+ years of coverage). For in-depth coverage satisfying WP:GNG (as opposed to WP:NCORP mainly because it's the history of the building, rather than the corporate history of the hotel, that makes the Grand Lodge especially notable), I would point to the 2022 Portland Monthly magazine article which includes the author's own experience of the site and the 1922 Oregon Journal article about the construction and opening of the Masonic home. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:19, 24 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 01:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Piqué[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and South America. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ms. Pique plays soccer professionally at the highest level. Of course she is notable and has significant coverage. See here and here and here among many other sources. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The vrouwenvoetbalnieuws.nl source provides a couple of sentences on her and takes lengthy quotes from the original story in the Algemeen Dagblad. The excelsiorrotterdam.nl source is not independent of her as she plays for them. culturu.com is a brief mention for an international call up which is routine coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dougal18's analysis is accurate. Athletes need to have at least one source of SIGCOV in their article, and that has not been satisfied here. JoelleJay (talk) 01:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:16, 22 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 03:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roneisha Frank[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Grenada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:16, 22 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 01:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tsang Pak Tung[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Hong Kong. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:16, 22 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 01:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Chung Yee[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Hong Kong. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:15, 22 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 01:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fong Kit Lun[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Hong Kong. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:15, 22 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!} 06:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chung Pui Ki[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Hong Kong. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sigcov in https://www.scmp.com/sport/football/article/3044655/fanling-kilmarnock-remarkably-resilient-journey-hong-kong-womens https://the18.com/en/soccer-news/deaf-single-mom-was-object-ridicule-until-daughter-decided-do-something-about-it https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1597429/soccer-ace-vicky-chung-sets-new-goals-after-dream-trip. pburka (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Pburka. Besides the sources the found, I found 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 among many many other sources from many different Chinese and English outlets. She is clearly significant figure in Hong Kong football. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 20. By the time I finish writing this, another 20 will probably be deleted. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:14, 24 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!} 06:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wai Yuen Ting[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Hong Kong. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another cookie-cutter nomination with no evidence of WP:BEFORE. In the future, please confirm that you have searched for sources and explain why obvious sources should be dismissed. In this case, there's sigcov in https://www.scmp.com/sport/hong-kong/article/3095795/hong-kong-womens-footballer-wai-yuen-ting-leaves-albanian-champions, https://www.scmp.com/sport/hong-kong/article/3091299/hong-kong-womens-footballer-wai-yuen-ting-step-closer-uefa, https://www.scmp.com/sport/hong-kong/article/3093130/hong-kong-footballer-wai-yuen-ting-becomes-first-hongkonger-ever, https://exit.al/en/2020/08/04/star-player-in-albanian-womens-football-team-to-return-home-to-hong-kong/, https://www.asianewsday.com/brave-hong-kong-football-star-wai-yuen-ting-gets-her-baptism-of-fire-playing-in-albania/, etc. And I didn't even try searching in Chinese. pburka (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Those are all transfer stories and match reports which are routine coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are far more than routine coverage. One of the articles calls her a "history-making Hong Kong footballer". They all provide significant coverage which address the subject in depth. pburka (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being the first Hongkonger to win a football championship in Europe (Albania) is no claim to notability. What happens on the pitch is irrelevant following the scrapping of N:FOOTBALL. Dougal18 (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What happens on the pitch certainly is irrelevant. But when the "star player" (per Albanian news sources) generates press coverage for her on-pitch achievements it becomes relevant per WP:GNG. Routine coverage is a few sentences reporting scores and transfers. These are well beyond routine. pburka (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Pburka. Besides the sources they found, I found 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 among many many more sources from many different Chinese news outlets as well as Albanian and English ones. She is clearly significant figure in Hong Kong football. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 20. By the time I finish writing this, another 20 will probably be deleted. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above scrapes though WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:15, 24 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 01:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Min Kyaw Khant[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is some minor coverage of an incident in which he shoved a referee in English in Eleven Myanmar and in Burmese in Duwun. Would want to see coverage outside of this one event for the article to be kept, though. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could only find coverage of the one event, which is not enough on its own for a stand-alone article Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 24 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 01:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Bank[edit]

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

There are a lot of articles on this company, but none of them seem to meet the guidelines of WP:NCORP. Here is my analysis of the ones I could find:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.americanbanker.com/news/immigrant-focused-fintechs-offer-lessons-for-banks			One medium-sized paragraph fails WP:CORPDEPTH	✘ No
https://thefintechtimes.com/is-silicon-valley-losing-its-lustre-big-tech-and-fintechs-move-out/	? mostly quoted from the founder		A longer paragraph, but still not enough for WP:CORPDEPTH	✘ No
https://www.fastcompany.com/90679620/neobanks-fair-khalid-parekh	Written by the company	?		✘ No
https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-ceos-really-think-well-come-back-to-work-11615813207			Company not mentioned	✘ No
https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/inno/stories/inno-insights/2021/12/04/fair-neobank-fintech-refugees-afghanistan-accounts.html	Centers on an interview with the company CEO	?		✘ No
https://finledger.com/articles/fair-a-neobank-and-financial-services-platform-raises-20-million/	Lots of quoting from the company CEO	?		✘ No
https://techcrunch.com/2021/05/10/fair/	Interview, fluffy promo piece	?		✘ No
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fair-launches-first-ever-halal-certified-neobank-and-wealth-building-platform-in-us-301323219.html	?	Questionable source		✘ No
https://www.yahoo.com/now/fair-neobank-announces-refugee-fundraising-140000861.html				✘ No
https://www.paymentsjournal.com/neo-banks-help-those-forgotten-by-traditional-financial-institutions/	?		? Possibly satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH, up to interpretation, a bit promo in tone	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

The company has quite the promotional machine, so independence may be hard to establish. Ovinus (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ovinus (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional and primary-sourced. It's way too soon to tell if this will be a notable company. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, somewhat promotional article tone, lacks wp:SIGCOV. Nythar^T^.^C 01:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does not seem to have achieved anything yet, hence the lack of notable information. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 18:16, 22 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!} 06:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hub City Writers Project[edit]

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

Deprodded in 2010 by a sockpuppet of Azviz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki); only primary sources and 1 press release for Hub City Press found online. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Organizations, and South Carolina. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not overwhelming, but there are at least 3 good sources - Greenville Journal, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and Garden and Gun. I think that's enough to pass GNG. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Per El cid, el campeador. A bare-minimum GNG pass. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 14:35, 22 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. SNOW closing this one. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thái Ngọc[edit]

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

Person who is notable only due to a scientifically unverified rumor that he can survive without sleep. Deprodded in 2010 by a sock of Azviz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), but then PROD restored this week by Drmies (talk · contribs) on the argument that the deprod was bad faith; the original rationale was:

This is a rumour, and as far as I can tell there are no credible sources - this claim is based on interviews with Thai Ngoc by two minor Vietnamese media outlets, and has not been scientifically verified. Thai Ngoc is not notable for any other reason. Therefore, I propose that this article be deleted unless a sufficiently believable source can be cited.
— User:121.73.78.69

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and Vietnam. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. Drmies prod restoration was perfectly fine and likely should have been left. 🙄 PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for reasons I explained earlier. LaundryPizza03, this really was a waste of time. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Andre🚐 02:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extraordinary claim needs decent sources, which this lacks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wasn't able to find anything to help support this claim. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also wasn't able to find anything. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:40, 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.