< August 20	August 22 >

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Julio Lacerda[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources per general notability guidelines. Although I cannot yet assess Dinosaur Art II, passing mentions or credited illustrations (as seen in The Atlantic and The Guardian is not significant coverage. And even if Dinosaur Art II is in depth, that's still just one source, meaning Wikipedia would be effectively promoting a single book's view. The artist certainly has gained some recognition, e.g. in blogs, Tumblr, and artist websites, but a WP:BEFORE search failed to find reliable coverage. Artist interviews (which are non-independent) appear at a blog and Polyfield Magazine, an online project that appears designed to promote artists ("we provide a platform for creators working within this emerging genre to share their practice with a global audience.") --Animalparty! (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Brazil. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Nice illustrations, accomplished paleoartist, but the subject fails WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention. WP:TOOSOON I added another sentence and citation, but it is not enough to raise him to notable. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Very few citations, does not meet WP:NARTIST. Samanthany (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding that this artist meets our notability requirements for WP:NARTIST. The work is nice but it is WP:TOOSOON for an article. Giving work to a museum is not the same as it being acquired by a curatorial process. There is no record of significant exhibitions, nor critical/analytical discouse about his work from art historians. Perhaps in a few years there will be enough coverage for an article, but not now. Netherzone (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clone Kitty[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. There are no independent sources and searching does not find independent coverage. Written by a WP:SPA, possible G11. MB 23:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. MB 23:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT (and authorship) but I'm not sure about the question of notability. The sources currently present in the article that I checked were either unreliable or not independent. Ovinus (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete for lack of GNG. Even with primary sources, huge chunks of the article are unsourced, and it reads far more emotional than is acceptable for an encyclopedia article. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This is an easy call. No sources and not notable. This article should be deleted. Go4thProsper (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to ER (TV series)#Cast and characters. Less Unless (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of ER characters[edit]

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

In-universe fancruft which fails NLIST. All primary sources and IMDB. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 09:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak delete/redirect. Ugh. A major show back in the day, we have plenty of articles about individual characters, some of which may be notable. This list fails to show why they are notable as a grouping, and is indeed pretty WP:FANCRUFTy, although I wouldn't be surpsised if something could be found for NLIST. At minimum, this needs to be pruned, and Cast of ER, a WP:POVFORK, needs to be merged into it. Or just redirected. If nobody can show his NLIST is met, a redirect to ER_(TV_series)#Cast_and_characters will do for now. Ping me if arguments for keeping this as meeting NLIST are presented.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Character lists need to prove themselves to meet either WP:GNG or WP:LISTN. Otherwise, they need to be pruned until they fit in the parent article. There are going to be extraordinarily few that actually meet the need to be WP:SPINOUT articles due to size concerns alone. Excluding that they probably already meet GNG or LISTN, something gargantuan like Pokemon would be the exception with their numerous lists. If it doesn't fit, then it's simply not important enough to cover under the scope of a general encyclopedia. TTN (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - This does not have appropriate coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:NLIST. Otherwise a WP:CONTENTFORK of other articles. Jontesta (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:LISTN. There is already Cast of ER anyway so no information of any use is being lost here that isn't pure FANDOM material. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect ER_(TV_series)#Cast_and_characters is an obvious target. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to the characters section of 8-Bit Theater. Merging is not necessary here. (non-admin closure) — Coolperson177 (t|c) 22:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Characters of 8-Bit Theater[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I propose to delete this article (or, more specifically, redirect to the article on 8-Bit Theater and merge any appropriate content across). While the comic itself is notable, I couldn't find sources showing that the characters of the comics themselves are notable enough on their own for a separate article. HenryCrun15 (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Comics and animation, and Webcomics. HenryCrun15 (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to 8-Bit Theater#Characters - Merging is not needed in this case, as the main article already has a section with sufficient descriptions for the central characters of the comic, and there is not a single source being used in this list that is not the comic itself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorshacma (talk • contribs)
Redirect to 8-Bit Theater#Characters per Rorshacma, and per WP:ALLPLOT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect as it's indeed an indiscriminate collection of in-universe information. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect per all prior rationale. This is most definitely a holdover from a bygone time when notability standards were more lax. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to 8-Bit Theater#Characters. Indiscriminate WP:ALLPLOT, with none of these refs being reliable nor indepedent. The lack of anything worth preserving makes redirecting better than merging, IMO. VickKiang (talk) 02:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rd, merge what's needed to be merged. Super duper old character list that has flown under the radar. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect per above Andre🚐 03:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Hidden in America[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Sources given do not show notability per NFILM. Rotten Tomatoes has only one review. Though the film was nominated for several awards (unsourced though that claim may be), it didn't win any. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Canada. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep – passes the GNG with reviews in The New York Times ([1]), the Los Angeles Times ([2]), Variety ([3]), the Miami Herald ([4][5]), and more. Consider checking some of the databases available through the Wikipedia Library, for instance ProQuest, as part of your WP:BEFORE search when dealing with older movies like these—oftentimes you'll find that there are more sources available than meet the eye. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - clear keep with reviews from NYT, LA Times, and Variety. matt91486 (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources available online (see above). BEFORE? DonaldD23 talk to me 00:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The proposed redirect won't work because the subject is not mentioned in the target page. Sandstein 07:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Routine of Nepal banda[edit]

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

Social Media Page which is not a media organization of Nepal and has no Online publication or offline papers. Most of the sources are connected with Balen and a single event as the page was promoting Balen Shah political campaigning and other sources looks like advertisement as the page is involved in social media promotion itself. "So, It clearly doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (media). DIVINE (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Nepal. DIVINE (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete absolutely non-notable, spammy cruft sourced to blackhat SEO, press releases and otherwise non-rs. PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just reiterating my delete vote, despite Tulsi's attempt to pass this off as notable yet again. PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, your new signature looks good, green green greenery everywhere, but why changed the name? I like PRAXIDICAE one. hehe.. — Tulsi 24x7 03:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Routine of Nepal Banda. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Possible strongest keep - I am not able to relate with this AFD reason and delete comment above, these are purely baseless/pointless reasons mentioned for deletion. Firstly, this topic is definitely notable per notability guideline of Wikipedia, WP:COMPANY. And, Wikipedia:Notability (media) is not one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and it is not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Secondly, the sources listed on the article are categorized as A or A+ (the possible highest rank) by Press Council Nepal as for reliability, providing factual information and based on other things. You may take a look at User:Usedtobecool/PSN by Usedtobecool which clearly guides you about which sources of Nepal states possible reliability and notability for Wikipedia. Taken this into consideration, I disagree with Praxidicae over here. I think she is not familiar with Nepalese sources and news media. As far as previous AFD is concerned, now it meets the notability criteria, WP:NORG/WP:COMPANY as the topic has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources. It meets WP:ORGDEPTH and sufficiently establish notability. RONB is so popular among Nepalis. Not based on its popularity, but based on our guideline WP:COMPANY I strongly advice to keep this article. Thank you for your understanding. — Tulsi 24x7 03:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Both are correct. Topic is notable (or close) but the article is too spammy. Specifically, what's notable is the RONB brand (social media pages/accounts). There is enough significant coverage for a GNG pass. But the "media company" that the Wikipedia articles that crop up write about has little to no coverage, and fails GNG, let alone NORG. It should be deleted unless it is rewritten to be about the former, and with a NPOV. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:ATD, if the article needs editing, it needs editing. The topic is notable so it should be kept. Kind regards, — Tulsi 24x7 08:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article needs complete rewriting and you have for some reason created it at the wrong title (why?). So, there is in fact nothing to be lost by deleting it. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you kidding me? nothing to be lost by deleting it? It would take away my given "time" (the most valuable thing as read in my primary school) 7 days (168 hours); my research for creating this article, to look for sources and information, the time should be valued. I could have created 7 more articles. Also, I don't think that I have created it at the wrong title, see its Facebook page - "Routine of Nepal banda" is what I have written as the title of the page which is per our policy recognizability. For a second, its wrong then we can easily move a page. ~~It doesn't need NASA technology to do that.~~ The AFD page and deletion policy itself suggests to look for alternatives rather than deleting the page. I don't see any valid grounds for deletion. The topic is notable and has reliable sources in it. It just need improvements a bit which I tried my best to give it. Still you think it need rewrite then fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. — Tulsi 24x7 16:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're discussing if the topic is notable in the first place, this doesn't appear to be based on our guidelines. The amount of time you spend is commendable, but irrelevant to the discussion here. We can't keep everything that pops up on wiki; if it's notable, it will be kept. Oaktree b (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I would rewrite it, if nothing else, to stop this creation/deletion cycle, if I could be sure you were not going to get paid for my efforts.
What I was saying in my original comment is that if the article gets rewritten before this AFD closes to be about the social media page/account, giving due weight to both the positive and the negative, I would !vote to keep it. I can only suggest it here; doing it myself, right now, would essentially be hijacking the article since I would be changing everything about it. Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment we do this wiki thing for free, and anything is at risk of deletion. The article can be changed, upgraded or re-written at anytime. It can be frustrating, but such is the wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete agree, non-notable and very spammy. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete non-notable, the subject of the article is more popular as a social media page on sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram rather than a reliable media house. The subject does not seem notable enough. Wallflowernepal (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete fails our NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I have re-written this article; contents more focused as a Facebook page (and not as a media company) which is what the topic multiple RS indicate. So, I request everyone to give it a check once again and has it passed through General notability guideline. The topic has enough sources to demonstrate notability and I feel deleting would be not fair just because contents in the article were not good. Kind regards, — Tulsi 24x7 04:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still a promotional page as they always encourage paid advertising, can't end the discussion when it's almost over, and must respect user votes. DIVINE (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editors are encouraged to edit the article in order address the shortcomings identified at AfD. But I don't understand the purpose of your changes as it seems to now ignore the modern incarnation. Can you explain? For example the first version of the page said it was a news agency and yes, the new version mentions it was registered as such also but in the lede only refers to it as a FB page - but that isn't true is it? The older page mentioned its followers on Insta and Twitter so ... its actually not just a FB page is it? I can see that you might have thought that editing the page to remove information might work but for me, the new version is now misleading and does not reflect the current incarnation of this brand. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HighKing: You're right. That's not just a FB page. Its social media pages/accounts (FB, Insta, Twitter) are popular and notable. There's little sources which mention it as a media company/news media. Per above delete comments including yours as well the topic fails notability to mention it as a company. So, I thought to rewrite and more focused as a FB page because mostly the sources says it as a FB page which is how it got started in 2011. But now, its a registered media company. Please advise how it can be improved. I am open to comments for article improvement. Kind regards, — Tulsi 24x7 03:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Please note per WP:DISCUSSAFD: The debate is not a vote; please do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments. I don't have anything more to say, if everyone want deletion then go for it, but I would still disagree because the topic has enough WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. — Tulsi 24x7 03:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to List of newspapers in Nepal#Online-only. RONB is a popular news dissimiating organization (perhaps run by 1 or 2 person). However, it is definately not a dedicated news agency, for instance check their website which has not been updated since a month- not a typical behaviour of a news organization. Best! nirmal (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mental projection[edit]

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

This article has been a stub since it's creation. Google searches on the subject are circular back to this page. The one reference (Powell, 1927) makes NO mention of mental projection (text here: [6] ). The mental plane subject is fully covered in its own article, and although the original author claims that this and astral projection are different, there is simply no corroborating sourcing or evidence to that effect. I also considered a redirect to the mental plane article , but again no good evidence that the subject is actually related.

I have considered a bold redirect to astral projection, and also to the mental plane but a lack of any evidence that the term is even used in anything that is not WP:FRINGE yields no hits. It does get mention on Youtube but this may well be because the article is here, being presented in wikivoice. It does not appear to be described in any WP:RS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spirituality and Psychology. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging user:Dchmelik as original author to alert to this discussion, and User:Phlegm Rooster as a previous contributor on the talk page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note in research that the article for deletion is "mental projection" as described in the article (projection of the consciousness on the mental plane). Plenty of sources talk about mental projection as something one does as a psychological construction of the mind. E.g. "That in its turn requires us to see, by mental projection, what the infinity of the universe really means." Such intellectual projection does not itself need an article as it is merely describing a mechanism of mental extrapolation from data to the unseen. In any case, that is not what this article is about. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, as it seems to be a one off idea. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete or, alternatively, Redirect to astral projection and I imagine that psychological projection is not what most readers are looking for when they search for this topic. jps (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguate and add other definition(s) jps and/or Sirfurboy described (not bad topics) or keep or redirect to mental plane or astral projection (the former is more related but latter is different in those theories). Sources/people discussing such planes and astral projection discuss this concept but may be hard to find, but I won't necessarily be looking because no longer think there's more than one plane.--dchmelik☀️🕉︎☉🦉🐝🐍☤☆(talk 10:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am a bit surprised this needs a relist when I, the nom plus three other editors argued for delete and only the page creator argued for “disambiguate” which is not really an AFD outcome. I don’t know what to add to this other than that the topic as written clearly does not meet WP:N. The page creator does go on to suggest a redirect to astral projection, but I don’t think that fits as this is ‘’apparently’’ only a term found in theosophy - and even in theosophy it gets no mention on the theosophy wiki nor in any writings I found. All links are sourced from here. To be clear then, the existence of this page is causing Wikipedia to posit WP:OR about a concept of mental projection, and even a redirect will do the same as it will associate mental projection with astral projection - which is novel usage unique to Wikipedia and articles sourced from here. The page needs deleting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sirfurboy: Probably to clarify whether to delete or redirect. Ovinus (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete for lack of references demonstrating that this is an encyclopedic topic. Nor is the title a well-established alternative term for something known by another name. XOR'easter (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 04:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TAFISA[edit]

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

I can't find reliable secondary sources on this organization. There are online mentions of people or organizations participating in these events, but I haven't found any reliable secondary sources about the organization itself. I have asked on the talk page if there are sources in languages besides English but have received no response. There is a slow edit war going on about who is in charge of the organization and where it is headquartered. There are no sources for those changes outside of organizational websites. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 12:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Sports. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 12:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak Keep. First off: Kudos @SchreiberBike for asking at the article talk page first. Alas AfD discussion are more visible. The article currently is in a sorry state, with a recent edit war (of COI editors?) and all. However, some sources exist; for some reason no one wants to put them in the article, and instead rather fight *facepalm*. Here's what I found

One okayish source presently in the article is this one, where the German Olympic Sports Confederation issued a press release.
this book goes into some detail on TAFISA and "Sport for All", which seems to be a rather German concept, basically meaning "sport without competition" (see de:Breitensport).
this one is in German, but goes on to claim that TAFISA is recognized by the IOC, UNESCO and other organizations. Alas, it doesn't seem fully independent, with a foreword given by the "general secretary" of TAFISA.
this book seems more independent, but does not go into much detail.
here it is mentioned as an international umbrella organisation.
here is another brief mention.

In conclusion... sources are sparse. I'm frankly not sure if what I found is enough to establish notability, but it might be that there are yet more sources out there. I'm mostly leaning keep because of their interaction with larger organizations, which at least for the German olympic confederation is proven. --LordPeterII (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here, I found three more sources of mediocre (to low) quality: a German one, a press release and something about their event --LordPeterII (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vithanakande Samarasinghe[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sri Lanka. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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) The Samarasinghe article fails this mandate. Cbl62 (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ansela Marlen Wijewickrema[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sri Lanka. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Triple manifestation[edit]

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

Article has been a two line stub since 2008. Neither of the sources cited on the article are reliable. A search online for "triple manifestation" does indeed reveal that the term was used in a minority of Theosophy literature but it is defined differently to what the article currently says. I do not believe the topic is notable enough to justify an article. In regard to the Theosophical literature it is primary source material. As independent reliable sources are lacking I believe the article should be deleted but it might be worth redirecting the article to Trimurti which was already linked in the see also section. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Per nom. and because any information regarding this subject, as it relates to Theosophy could and should be contained entirely within that article. There is nothing here to merge so merge is inappropriate, and deletion is appropriate. Not notable enough to merit a redirect. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep or redirect/add to (a) Theosophy article. It's not only Trimurti & Tridevi but was used to described the neoplatonic & Christian trinities and (as a general theory even in future) other cases of any such triple/triad in religions. It's possible/likely Madame Blavatsky (older cited source) coined the term, which doesn't automatically make her unreliable for definition (but does for derived interpretation which any such part should be corrected/deleted). Mary Scott (later cited source) isn't standard Theosophy source: secondary/neotheosophy--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 06:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I oppose a redirect to Theosophy. It is not clearly a subject of importance in Theosophy and the links on the page now try to connect it with two different trinity articles. The nom. also suggests Trimurti. There is no obvious redirect target so there should be no redirect target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable, independent, secondary sources that could be used to write content and justify a stand-alone page. XOR'easter (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. There are times where articles make me very confused at how it survived for over a decade. I concur with others saying that there is not enough reliably-sourced information. SWinxy (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is confusing, but there appears to be consensus against the compromise merge and there is no attribution to be preserved. If someone needs the content to merge, no need to come through WP:REFUND Star Mississippi 03:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Judo at the 2009 Maccabiah Games[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDATABASE; fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. There is consensus to delete prior editions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Israel. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also nominating:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: The result of the previous discussion was to delete a prior EDITION, not EDITIONS. These 3 articles are a whole different discussion. In a quick google search I've found coverage of the 2009 edition at Israel's largest newspaper at the time. I've added some of the information from that article to it's wiki counterpart. Have you tried improving these articles before blank nominating them for deletion? This suggestion seems agenda driven, more than one based on a true lack of coverage. Pinging @Simeon and Dr vulpes: who might want to add to this discussion. CLalgo (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've already managed to add iformation and citations from secondary sources to 2009, 2017 & 2022, and that's in 30 minutes. The articles can and should be improved but NOT deleted. There is notability, information can be found. One needs only to try. CLalgo (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a clear violation of WP:CANVASS. Tagging all other users who were in the last discussion here. @Vexations, @Avilich, @Gidonb @Papaursa @SWinxy @Malcolmxl5 and @Littehammy Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(pinged) More to the point, this seems to me like this is an attempt at WP:VOTESTACKING: it is similarly inappropriate to send a disproportionate number of notifications specifically to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. Simeon and Dr vulpes were the ones who !voted to keep the 2005 editions. I will cast my thoughts once I see newcomers cast theirs (would bias things otherwise). SWinxy (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete The article has two sources, a sports database, https://www.judoinside.com/event/5807 and an article that was published on 18 June 2009, a month before the event took place: https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3733416,00.html. There is no significant coverage of the event itself. If such coverage exists, please add it and I'll reconsider. As for agenda, I have none with regards to coverage of Judo, except Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and my distaste for turning an encyclopedia into a clone of existing sports databases. Vexations (talk) 10:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all per my previous comments. We need better-developed articles instead of these thinly sliced intersections of an edition per sport. The literature does not support that. gidonb (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all per NOTDATABASE, no evidence of notability as a subtopic of the games themselves. Avilich (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete all. I agree with the failure to pass WP:NOTDATABASE and partially WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia shouldn't just be a listing of sports events, but include encyclopedic content. SWinxy (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Suggested compromise; Merge: I see that I'm in the minority, supporting leaving the separate articles be. I would like to suggest an alternative solution to their deletion, alongside the information in them and the work done in their build. Let us merge all relevant articles under Judo at the Maccabiah Games, with the deleted articles redirected to their respective sections in the new aggregated article. @Sportsfan 1234, Vexations, Gidonb, Avilich, and SWinxy: Do you object? CLalgo (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there's something that is not raw stats, and is well-sourced, I have no objections to including that information in an article somewhere. But if it's the same content, only now all in one place, I don't agree with that. Vexations (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contents of these articles can be copied and pasted into the Maccabiah edition articles. Mention where you got the content in the edit summary. Tables should be hidden please if too much. Texts that describe events definitely can be merged. Often the texts that exist only explain where events were held, so I am not getting into merges, but there is some material that can be manually merged. Initially, also mentioned. Now referring back to previous comments. There can also be a list of medal winners per sport at all Maccabiah editions. As I mentioned upfront, the Maccabiah is an important event. We are currently overdoing its importance in the number of articles, and underdoing it in their content. gidonb (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your suggestion seems fair to me, but I'm reluctant to create such articles just to have them go strait to AFD. Will we get support in pausing the Maccabiah articles deletions, to reorganize them in a better way, as suggested? CLalgo (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not see any deletions that were not intersections between a particular sport and a particular edition. We do have a few all-Maccabiah articles. Please do not enter any game summaries there. Just one list of all medal winners in all editions. Or multiple lists in one article, for example, for tennis and rowing. When there are game/configuration variants. As for the edition articles, feel free to work against the clock with copy and pastes. If you missed and want to go back to something, follow the links here and ask a mod to access any deleted article. gidonb (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for the permanent value of medalist lists. Consider the following hypothetical (i.e. I do not know any of the following to be true!!!). Famous international and Israeli swimmers, with articles, have participated in the Maccabiah and won medals. In the newspapers, there are comparisons between editions: who returned, who did not, who faired better, and who faired worse. Badminton: the totally unknown top Israeli players participate and totally unknown players from some countries, who can hit the shuttle. Nobody cares about the games. For one create a medalist list, for the other not. gidonb (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

don't agree. This is a minor global event with non-notable athletes (for the most part) Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taking out the tables, and combining all the articles leaves little meat leftover. For that reason, I can't justify a separate article. For now, though, placing it in the respective edition of the Games is what I would do. SWinxy (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge, per edition of Maccabiah Games I suggest creating a list of medal winners per edition of the Maccabiah Games. See: Category:Lists of World Games medalists, so we'd have List of 2009 Maccabiah Games medal winners, List of 2013 Maccabiah Games medal winners, etc. We would have two articles: an article for a Maccabiah Games edition and a "list of medal winners" article. I don't know if there is a need to have an article such as "Judo at the Maccabiah Games". If we do, it should probably be a "list of" article like List of Pan American Games medalists in judo as that places emphasis on the list and not that we're intending to write an overview / history of the sport at this multi-sport event. Simeon (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This suggestion seems fair to me. CLalgo (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment @Liz: I can't see why you relisted this. The purpose of a merge is to preserve the attribution of content, but in this case CLalgo is the sole author and can simply paste the content in another page without a formal merge. CLalgo's needless compromise to "merge" his own content is basically filibustering, intentional or not, and the discussion shouldn't have been relisted for another full week merely because of that. Avilich (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry you're upset at my decision to relist this discussion, Avilich, but I look at dozens of discussions each day and this one didn't seem to have consensus. If it's any comfort, usually relisted discussions are closed before the week is over by admins who review AFD logs so you probably won't have to wait that long. But I'll leave the next step to another administrator to do, I'm not going to take any further action myself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if this stopwatch approach to AfDs is super healthy. Either decision was defendable. Thank you for closing and relisting so many AfDs with great precision, User:Liz! gidonb (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn - Thanks to Insight 3 for finding sources I was not able to. Cheers y'all. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 09:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lab-e-Mehran[edit]

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

Can't find sources on it, seems to fail general notability guidelines and geographical place notability guidelines.— Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Pakistan. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep — passes WP:GEOLAND. The park is legally recognized, runs under Sukkur District administration: SHC orders officials to revive Sukkur’s Lab-e-Mehran Park, SC conducts hearing on Lab-e-Mehran Park case. Insight 3 (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Insight 3 how does it pass WP:GEOLAND? It is a recognised place, but is it actually populated? Is it a disputed region? Is it a natural feature? It seems to be none of those things to me, as I don't think having a small hotel counts as "populated", I don't see how it's disputed, and it's not a natural feature given it was built. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Lack of significant independant coverage to meet WP:GNG. It being a legally recognised park isn't sufficient for notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, you may look into the following sources:

General independent coverage:

Daily Times

Dawn

Friday Times

Urdu Point

National Geographic

Court case coverage regarding ownership and management of the park:

The Express Tribune

The News

All above sources are reliable and seems to me, the subject also passes WP:GNG. Insight 3 (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Whilst some of those are more passing mentions and not significant coverage, I think overall it does meet WP:GNG, so I'm changing my !vote. I mustn't have searched very well. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Worth keeping, passes WP:GNG. Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Insight.VR _talk 05:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Dues to sources mentioned by Insight 3. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. People disagree about whether the sources we have are good enough in the light of WP:GNG. Sandstein 07:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brit shalom (naming ceremony)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article relates to an extensively small, fringe movement among (predominately) non-theistic followers of Judaism to not perform Brit Milah. Citations show that even supporters state that presently "calling it a marginal phenomenon would be generous" and reads more like a promotion page than a NPOV. Only a few, minor sources within it even relate to the subject. Perhaps merits a single sentence on Brit Milah (the article on the Jewish rite of circumcision).— Preceding unsigned comment added by KlayCax (talk • contribs) 15:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Albeit short, article seems well referenced. Nominator accuses it of reading more like a promotion page, but also seems to have an axe to grind with the so-called fringe movement. — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Citations #2, #4, #7, #11, #17, #18 are from two non-reliable sites called Circumstitions and CircInfo; #5, #8, #9, #11, #14, #16, and #19 make no direct mention of the practice at all.

Even the citations within it that mention the topic state: Ungar-Sargon, who has called circumcision “physically harmful, medically irresponsible and morally wrong,” said that an alternative to Jewish ritual circumcision, or brit milah, was “a great idea” — albeit one whose time has clearly not yet come. “Calling it a marginal phenomenon would be generous,” he said.

I agree that routine, non-consensual circumcision is wrong, but Wikipedia isn't a place to right great wrongs and there's nothing about it that seems independently notable for the time being. KlayCax (talk) 06:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that routine, non-consensual circumcision is wrong
I fail to see how our opinion about the topic is at all relevant to the deletion or maintenance of this article (WP:VOICE). — Guarapiranga ☎ 22:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm aware that it isn't relevant. I was responding to your statement that: ... seem... to have an axe to grind with the so-called "fringe movement". Given the response, I wanted to point out that I actually oppose it within developed countries. I just don't think the article is notable. Sorry if I misinterpreted your quote. KlayCax (talk) 11:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG --Shrike (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG as can be seen with several sources I was able to identify from a search, such as this in the Jewish Business News, this in the Jewish News, and this in The Forward. There are numerous other sources in addition to these three. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All of those citations have numerous, extensive problems. KlayCax (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first one is simply an editorial by the group promoting it — Doctors Opposing Circumcision — that was sent to Jewish Business News and simply lists anecdotal stories of Jewish families that didn't undergo it. That's a primary source and opinion article that clearly doesn't meet the standards of a reliable source. The second article that you linked (the one by Jewish News) simply states that an overwhelming small minority of Jews have did this. Then goes on to state that that Board of Deputies president Jonathan Arkush said it was not possible to have a ceremony without the circumcision in Jewish religious law... Rabbit Charley Baginsky... Liberal Judaism's direction of strategy and partnerships... [States] "It is also...important that the Jewish community as a whole speaks up for the ritual of circumcision.. The third article — by The Forward — again specifies that it is a fringe movement, with the article sprinkled with quotes such as: "As of now, the petition has drawn about 70 signatures... their [extensively] small numbers" and Circumcision remains the norm in all major Jewish denominations... a small... minority and et cetera. KlayCax (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a clear instance of a WP: Fork that could be easily addressed on the existing Brit Milah page. The entire page (once the current fat is trimmed from it) could be summarized in about four or five sentences. There's almost no information about this at all: beyond overwhelmingly basic information; much less ones that meet the standards of notability. Per Wikipedia guidelines, there's no need for this to be a separate article. The existent pages on circumcision are perfectly sufficient. KlayCax (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found and added a few more sources in the mainstream press (these are all there; I can't remember which ones I added, tbh):

I agree the article is poorly written, and rather short, but by the coverage of the topic in the mainstream press, it seems notable enough. It just needs to be improved (I've added some more sources, but unfortunately I'm not as inclined to write prose).— Guarapiranga ☎ 07:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Almost all of the citations you give don't meet the requirements of WP: GNG. For instance, the The New Yorker article cited simply gives a throwaway line about the subject. WP:SIGCOV is clear that it has to be significant coverage: a brief mention doesn't suffice. I'm failing to see how the article couldn't be merged into Brit Milah as a subsection. Unless the topic is independently notable for other reasons — such as those I mentioned to Devonian Wombat — this is nothing more than a WP: REDUNDANTFORK. The claims above that you are listed are also heavily disputed. Many online citations (as well as those published by major academic publishers) have conversely argued that Jewish rates of circumcision are rising.

If the rite becomes increasingly prevalent in the coming years — to the point in which it becomes widespread among members of the Jewish community; or, becomes independently notable for other reasons, and can be significantly expanded beyond 5-8 sentences — then I can see an argument for forking. For now, it's better merged. KlayCax (talk)

The New Yorker article cited simply gives a throwaway line about the subject.
Oh, please, the whole article, though written as a personal account rather than an exhaustive survey, is about the "circumcision debate" in the Jewish community, as Goldman (2004)^[9] and My Jewish Learning^[10] call it, which brit shalom is one response to. — Guarapiranga ☎ 06:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem to be arguing under a misconception of what WP:FRINGE is referring to, it does not preclude having articles on fringe movements, or else we would have to delete Church of Scientology, Theistic Satanism, Fourth International Posadist, and thousands of other articles on such clearly notable topics. FRINGE is largely used in order to guard against pseudoscience being presented as fact. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm aware that something being fringe doesn't automatically disqualify it from having a Wikipedia article. However — unlike Brit Shalom — those articles meet the criteria WP:NFRINGE and WP: GNG. The present article doesn't. There's no reason that it couldn't be merged into Brit Milah. It's a clear case of a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. The information would be better placed elsewhere. There's no need to WP: Fork the information to a separate, isolated article that has almost no opportunity for expansion. KlayCax (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Devonian Wombat that you're mistaking small for non-notable, KlayCax, especially when you say, just now, for instance, that you only see a reason for keeping the article if the rite becomes increasingly prevalent in the coming years — to the point in which it becomes widespread among members of the Jewish community. Small movements can be notable if their coverage by RS is not small. Otherwise, we'd also have to delete articles on Branch Davidians, the Order of the Solar Temple, the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God, etc. Further, the current state of a present article is not a criterion for deletion, but whether the topic it covers is or isn't notable. At most, if an article is too crude to be published, below stub class, then one could argue for its draftification, not deletion on these grounds only. On the other hand, I see that you've made some valuable edits to the article since nominating it for deletion; I may not agree with them all—and indeed we're discussing them in the article's talk page—but together we may be able to get the article up to scratch. — Guarapiranga ☎ 06:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All of those articles meet the criteria of WP: GNG for other reasons. Brit Shalom doesn't.

A belief merely being fringe doesn't disqualify it from WP: GNG. However, it must meet standards of notability for other reasons. KlayCax (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

^ Greenberg, Zoe (2017-07-25). "When Jewish Parents Decide Not to Circumcise". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 2017-09-14. Retrieved 2022-07-31.
^ Shteyngart, Gary (2021-09-30). "A Botched Circumcision and Its Aftermath". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2022-08-02. When it came to her own son, she opted for the brit-shalom naming ceremony (a version of which, sometimes called the brit bat, is also performed for girls). When her son asked her why he wasn't circumcised, she told him, "You are a Jew in your head and your heart, not your penis."
^ Boorstein, Michelle (2013-12-28). "A small but growing number of Jews are questioning the ancient ritual of circumcision". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Archived from the original on 2021-03-15. Retrieved 2022-07-31.
^ Bradley Hagerty, Barbara (2011-07-25). "Circumcision: Rite Faces Modern Concerns". NPR. Retrieved 2022-08-02.
^ Oryszczuk, Stephen (28 February 2018). "The Jewish parents cutting out the bris". The Times of Israel. Jerusalem. Archived from the original on 3 April 2019. Retrieved 4 January 2020.
^ Kasher, Rani (23 August 2017). "It's 2017. Time to Talk About Circumcision". Haaretz. Tel Aviv. Archived from the original on 4 September 2017. Retrieved 4 January 2020.
^ "Even in Israel, More and More Parents Choose Not to Circumcise Their Sons". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2022-05-25. Retrieved 2022-07-31.
^ "These Jews want to normalize not circumcising — and they want synagogues to help". Jewish Telegraphic Agency. 2021-10-07. Archived from the original on 2021-10-26. Retrieved 2022-07-30.
^ Goldman, Ronald (2004). Denniston, George C.; Hodges, Frederick Mansfield; Milos, Marilyn Fayre (eds.). "The Growing Jewish Circumcision Debate". Flesh and Blood. Boston, MA: Springer US: 171–194. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-4011-0_13. ISBN 978-1-4757-4011-0. Archived from the original on 2018-06-04. Retrieved 2022-07-31.
^ "The Circumcision Debate". My Jewish Learning. Archived from the original on 2021-08-12. Retrieved 2022-07-30. According to a 2017 New York Times article, while "the great majority of Jewish parents still circumcise, and opting out remains almost taboo in much of the mainstream," the practice is quietly coming under scrutiny from some Jews. The article noted that "a number of parents" who opted out of the circumcision "did not want to speak on the record about their decision, and some rabbis who had done alternative bris ceremonies asked not to be named publicly."

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Weak Delete A few decent sources but it is already mentioned in Brit Milah and it seems WP:UNDUE for a separate page yet. Some of this info could go there instead. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, small but notable. Andre🚐 22:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources, enough to meet GNG: e.g. 1, 2, 3. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No editor is suggesting that the contents of Brit Shalom should be deleted and not be replicated elsewhere on Wikipedia.

We already have a satisfactory article on the Jewish position on circumcision that meets GNG and could adequately elaborate on the subject there — Brit Milah — and that separating the contents of the articles constitutes an unnecessary WP: Fork of the content matter. It would be better if the information is provided there, instead of it being WP: Fork'ed away to an obscure article that could not significantly expounded upon. (Beyond reliable sources stating that it involves Jewish parents who decline circumcision: there's not much else to presently write about it. It simply seems to predominately act as a term for Jewish parents who reject the rite of circumcision for their sons. Additionally, many Jews who reject Milah don't use the term "Brit Shalom" for their decision.)

If more citations on the subject comes in the coming years by reliable sources — where keeping the information on Brit Milah would make the article an instance of WP:COATRACK — then a separate article should be created. For now, it's a WP: Fork. Consolidation and a merger with Brit Milah is the best path forward. (Note: I'm the original AfD submitter.) It would be much better placed merged within the preexisting Brit Milah article in a subsection. Contents of the existing article could then be merged into it. KlayCax (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No editor is suggesting that the contents of Brit Shalom should be deleted and not be replicated elsewhere on Wikipedia.
And yet over 2 weeks ago I questioned you at the article talk page on the refs you removed from the article, and you didn't follow up. From the start of your nomination you seem determined to erase brit shalom from WP bc an overwhelming small minority of Jews practice it. We've already established that notability is determined by RS coverage (of which brit shalom has plenty), not widespread adoption. — Guarapiranga ☎ 05:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"From the start of your nomination you seem determined to erase" What are you specifically referring to? I've been consistent in stating that the current information within the article should be merged into other relevant Wikipedia pages: such as Brit Milah and cultural views on circumcision. If anything, the present layout relegates and hides the information into a low-viewed (compare the daily English page views of Brit Milah to Brit Shalom) and hardly linked article in which the vast majority of users looking for the information will never come across. Moving information from article A to article B isn't erasing it. Considering the fact that it's being transferred unto articles with far more regular viewership than its previous location. That's the complete opposite of erasure.

"We've already established that notability is determined by WP:RS coverage (of which brit shalom has plenty), not widespread adoption" Whether it meets WP: RS is debatable at best. (For reasons I addressed above.) Regardless of the matter — even if it did meet the criteria — there's already an area for the information to go: Brit Milah and cultural views on circumcision. It's an unnecessary WP: Fork that raises a multitude of issues. Is it a general page on circumcision/anti-circumcision attitudes within Judaism? Is it specifically referring to a set of anti-circumcision views within Judaism? Or what? Whatever the answer is: it seems to highly go against the case of it meriting its own article. For instance: would the proposed Brit Shalom article refer to all Jewish parents through all of history who haven't circumcised their sons? Should pro-Seleucid Jews (who overwhelmingly did not circumcise their sons per their edicts) during the time of the Maccabean Revolt count? What about "radical" (in the context of Jewish theology) Reform Jews during the 1800s? Should modern day Jews who don't circumcise their sons but don't identify with Brit Shalom be included? (As mentioned above) Particularly considering that previous "anti-circumcision" movements have already existed among followers of Judaism. If they are included, the article should obviously be merged into somewhere else. (Since it would no longer specifically be about the modern movement of Brit Shalom: and would be something like Jewish attitudes towards circumcision, which obviously seems to already fit within the article of Brit Milah) If not, what warrants this particular movement obtaining its own article, since it would be a broader topic that would encompass other views on circumcision throughout the history of Judaism. Why should this specific subsection of anti-circumcision viewpoints be WP: Split while other movements in history aren't included? And why can't the information presently in the article be addressed on other, current pages? KlayCax (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shaquille Barzey[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fallen (miniseries)[edit]

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

Insufficient RS to prove notability. Did not find any resources online. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Religion, and Christianity. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Nomination is incorrect. "Did not find any resources online" is a false statement as there is a link to a review at Common Sense Media, which is a Reliable Source. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - inadequate before, additional online reviews [7], [8], [9]. matt91486 (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Variety and OC Register reviews noted above clearly indicate notability. A BEFORE search can be very difficult with such a common name--I find much better results adding in the original author's or airing network names to get reviews. Jclemens (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep because the subject passes WP:GNG with the sources provided above. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Reviews support that WP:NTELEVISION is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and replace with Rimon (disambiguation). Sandstein 09:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rimon[edit]

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

Nonnotable wine, unreferenced text giving no indications of notability Loew Galitz (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wine and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Rimon Winery. I don't see anything in this article to Merge. The could also be an argument that Rimon (disambiguation) should be at the base name, but since there are no exact matches, the wine brand may well be the PT. MB 14:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
since there are no exact matches means exactly that this must be a dab page and not be squatted by a nonnotable wine/winery. If anything Rimon (name) is more notable, or even Yosef Zvi Rimon, with multiple awards. Loew Galitz (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, move Rimon (disambiguation) to Rimon. The winebrand is not distingushable from the winery. The name itself is Hebrew for Pomegranate and is widely used. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move the dab to the base title as there doesn't appear to be a primary topic (all the entries are valid as far as I can tell: people with the name are alright per MOS:DABSUR, "Rimon" is the name of one of the villages in Rimon-et-Savel, etc.). No opinion on whether the wine brand is notable, but the presumption should probably be that it isn't: in that case, instead of deletion it's better to move the current article to something like Rimon (wine), then turn it into a redirect to the winery and tag it with ((R with history)) and ((R from subtopic)). Uanfala (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, Rimon (wine) could point at Rimon Winery. The winery only has this one label which is named after itself and the fruit (pomegranate) used to make the wine. There isn't anything to merge to the winery other than maybe the File:PikiWiki Israel 46764 Entertainment.jpg image of bottles. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. And move Rimon (disambiguation) to Rimon. Everyone above made some great points. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) also drew the right conclusions. gidonb (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not look into the wine, so I have no opinion on that. But I like to note that the nominator effectively removed the article without any discussion, replacing it with what is now Rimon (disambiguation). Beside that, I do not understand why Rimon (name) was split off from the disambiguation page. The Banner talk 18:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- WP:BOLD, colleague, have you ever heard about this rule? Loew Galitz (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Ever heard of the rule "discuss first". The Banner talk 22:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Name is split because this is a normal practice, because names/surnames are different types of pages. Even wikidata creates a mess by treting them differently, if in one languag it is a disambig page and in another language it is a surname page. Loew Galitz (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Kudos for another great point, this time by User:The Banner. Rimon (name) is a premature disambiguation spinoff and needs to merge into the new Rimon disambiguation page at WP:PRIMARY! gidonb (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I agree that Rimon (name) should be merged back into the dab: a separate surname index is warranted either if there's significant encyclopedic content about the name (there is virtually none) or if the list of people has become so long as to make using the dab page cumbersome (with just 4 entries, it doesn't look like this is ever going to happen).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 18:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ackeem Hyde[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Trentino Tyrolean Autonomist Party. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Autonomist Trentino[edit]

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

Local party that ran in the provincial elections of Trento in 2003, within the centre-right coalition, obtaining a result that was not entirely irrelevant (2.17%) but which did not allow it to directly get seats in the provincial council (Carlo Andreotti was elected as in the council as candidate for president, not with this list). The result alone is not enough: the party is practically non-existent in the sources and it seems not to meet WP:GNG. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. The party obtained more than 2% in a provincial election and was represented for five years in the Provincial Council of Trentino by one provincial councillor, Carlo Andreotti (see the official website of the Council: [10]), meaning that he was officially elected for that party. There are more than 300 Google hits] for "carlo andreotti" + "trentino autonomista", thus more sources can be added to the article, and the party is mentioned in the official history of the Trentino Tyrolean Autonomist Party (see [11]). Clearly, the article should be be kept, consistently to similar cases (recently, just think of Civic Sardinia — Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civic Sardinia), otherwise I suggest to merge it with Trentino Tyrolean Autonomist Party. --Checco (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't use Google Hits as a motivation for keeping, can't you see that many sites are links to Wikipedia? This case is somewhat different from Civic Sardinia, which has elected regional and municipal councilors with its list. This is surely a borderline situation: it did not directly elect councilors, but Andreotti was elected to the council as candidate for president of the centre-right coalition.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge with Trentino Tyrolean Autonomist Party as suggested above. This party does not look relevant enough on its own to have a separate article on en.wiki. Yakme (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge with / Redirect to Trentino Tyrolean Autonomist Party - one given source is a dead link, the other provides just the result of the 2003 elections. This subject, however, is cited in PATT's history at this link: I think it is worth mentioning the existence of "Autonomist Trentino" in PATT's article and the results of 2003 elections, but nothing more. P1221 (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Democrats for Trentino[edit]

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

Local party that existed for a very short time, it ran in the provincial elections of Trento in 2008, with its leader Andreolli, obtaining a result that was not entirely irrelevant (1.96%) but which did not allow it to get seats in the provincial council. Despite this, the result alone is not enough: the party is practically non-existent in the sources and the page is written in a few lines. It doesn't meet WP:GNG. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. A party obtaining 2% of the vote in a provincial election clearly deserves an article in Wikipedia, especially as we do not have an article on its leader, who was a provincial/regional councillor and provincial party leader. There are more than 200 Google hits on "democratici per il trentino" + "andreolli". Otherwise, we could start an article on Remo Andreolli and merge this article into that one, but, in my view, having an article on the party is the best option. --Checco (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The electoral result itself is not entirely bad (even if it has been described as negative), but it is not enough on its own. You keep showing Google Hits as a motivation for keeping, but what are the references to this party? They are almost exclusively articles on the electoral results of the provincial elections in Trento in 2008 as well as some interviews with Andreolli in which the electoral result of his list is considered negative). I do not think there are articles that tell of this party, a mere percentage does not alone justify the existence of a page on Wikipedia. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. No sources available for the relevance of this small party (does it still exist even?). It looks like it was born out of pettiness of one PD member against the PD provincial leadership, and had no luck whatsoever in its electoral history. Definitely does not meet WP:GNG. Yakme (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Sources provided: one dead link, the results of the 2008 provincial elections, where the party obtained 1.73% of the votes and no seats. I cannot find other sources on this party after the 2008 elections. This is not sufficient for considering the subject notable. P1221 (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and Yakme. Nothing significant on Google books either. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abdi Daud Roble[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Somalia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, per nomination, fails WP:SIGCOV. Shaniquagreen (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Organization for the Communist Party of the Proletariat of Italy[edit]

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

This is an unknown communist party/group absent from the sources. Even the period of foundation is practically unknown. It doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. There is plenty of sources and more than 400 Google Hits on this party, that deserves an article in Wikipedia. --Checco (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rather than using Google hits as the only reason for keeping the page (and indeed it is not a valid motivation for keeping the page) why don't you try to explain why this party has encyclopedic relevance?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Checco, did you at least open the links returned by Google? This is what I obtained:

1) Page doesn't exist

2) Page doesn't exist

3) A link to Marche's archives, containing 59 various magazines; few of them are "La nostra lotta", published by "Comitato Centrale per l'organizzazione per il partito comunista del proletariato d'Italia" (is it the same thing as the subject of this article?)

4) This very Wikipedia article

5) The italian Wikipedia article Conferenza Internazionale dei Partiti e delle Organizzazioni Marxisti-Leninisti (Unità e Lotta), saying that the subject was a former member of it (unsourced, since this organization's website doesn't report the subject at all).

6) The content of a bin (probably an artwork installed in Venice). One anti-secessionist leaflet of the subject was found in its content.

7) A 2008 post in forumcommunity.net (not a valid source for Wikipedia, I'm not even allowed to publish the link...), listing the communist parties in Italy

8) A bookseller website, selling some reviews "La nostra lotta" (same as point 3 above)

9) How to pronounce the subject's name...

10) A mirror image of english Wikipedia's article Ubaldo Buttafava.

11) A passing reference in a self-published newsletter.

I'm stopping here, but I think that none of the "Google hits" is a valid secondary source required for establishing the notability of this subject. P1221 (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as there is no reason given to why this was relevant. The article is completely unsourced. Yakme (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The state of sourcing within articles on English Wikipedia is not correlated with notability or lack thereof. See WP:NEXIST for more information.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - no sources, very vague style ("..was a Hoxhaist Communist party in Italy founded sometime around the 1970s–1994", "...became defunct somewhere around 2002"; you cannot even tell when it was founded and disbanded???) P1221 (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - this organization was the official Italian franchise linked with Albania, and the work of the organization must have been amply covered in contemporary Albanian press (like Zëri i Popullit, Radio Tirana, etc.), but none of this appears to be available online. --Soman (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't question it, unfortunately without sources it is difficult to verify the relevance of a party. Sources online would be preferable, but punctual paper sources would also be ok. However, with no sources available, the party's notability is not verifiable.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Somalia at the 2016 Summer Olympics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mohamed Daud Mohamed[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NOLYMPICS as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Somalia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Somalia at the 2016 Summer Olympics, which already has more content on Mohamed than his own article. There's some coverage out there, but it's mostly about the two-person Somali Olympic team rather than Mohamed himself; see [12] and [13], which are probably the most in-depth sources, or [14] and [15] which are more about the team than Mohamed himself. I'm not sure the coverage quite meets GNG, but it's at least enough to justify a redirect to the team's article. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 18:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or redirect to Somalia at the 2016 Summer Olympics. 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) The Mohamed article fails this mandate.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as consensus that sources found are WP:SIGCOV. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 18:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ahmed Mohamed Ismail[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Somalia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Found SIGCOV relating to his winning the Detroit marathon. See here. There's also five paragraphs in this about his efforts prior to the 1984 Olympics. Cbl62 (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. I've also now found this/this two-page profile on Ismail. Passes GNG with SIGCOV in multiple reliable and independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, per Cbl62. Great work finding sources! BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Football at the 2005 Maccabiah Games – Men's tournament[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Israel. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Maccabiah Games is very well covered by such news agencies as Jewish Chronicle, Jewish News. By others in New York, London, maybe a few other editorials in other countries and Israel. So tell me, have you even done a WP:BEFORE looking for sources in those periodicals? Govvy (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe this AfD concerns men's football at the 2005 Maccabiah games, not the Maccabiah games. Avilich (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete there was already an AFD for Football at the 2005 Maccabiah Games, which determined it wasn't notable enough for a separate article. So one football event of that competition will definitely not be notable for an independent article. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - the parent article has been deleted, this should also go. Giant Snowman 20:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article is unsourced even after 3 weeks of AfD, meaning deletion is mandatory per WP:V. Can be draftified or userfied on request via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 09:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Table tennis at the 2022 ASEAN Para Games[edit]

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

Table tennis at the 2022 ASEAN Para Games

This article has no references. It also refers to a future event (as stated in the parent article) and does not give enough details to be encyclopedic, as well as being too soon for a future event. The lede sentence incorrectly uses the past tense. This article has no encyclopedic content. It was moved to draft space, and was moved back to article space by the author. It does not belong in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Indonesia. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep You are too hasty. It started 2 days ago and by the time its done there will be enough info and sources to populate this and other articles Gbawden (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is a redirect a feasible possibility for this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. As for if a redirect would be of use, I don't see that it could, even though it's an alternative. For a redirect to 2022 ASEAN Para Games, a bar to pass would need to include an overview of the events. SWinxy (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draftify, it's got potential but needs sources and is not yet in a fit state for publication. Note that the article might also need to be salted to prevent creator from moving it back before it's ready: see WP:Articles for deletion/Goalball at the 2022 ASEAN Para Games for background. Storchy (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against merging. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Motorcycle Bell[edit]

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

no need for a standalone article on a "motorcycle bell" the extent to which a motorcycle bell can be discussed can probably be done on Motorcycle or Motorcyclist PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, inclined to agree that an element of a Motorcycle, in this case a bell, is not a notable standalone topic, and the way the article has been written makes me wonder how serious it is. At a desperate push, it could be a redirect to a section on Motorcycle components, but the "bell" isn't even really mention on there already, so it may only be doing it for the sake of doing it. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will edit the name to Guardian or Gremlin Bell then being Motorcycle Bell is Vague. It's clearly a part of historical times, sorry you find motorcycle cites as unreliable. I did cite Harley Davidson , so clearly you did not read down that far to see that notation which is considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia. Motorcycle information systems for research are far and few in between so the cites given where informational to the upmost part of the articles main points. Proving it exist showed online buying sites, which I have no affliation. It can also be see in Google Trends as a search with HIGH volume amongst the thousands of domains with different variations of the origins of this FOLK Tale not simply a component rather than a piece of history added to a vehicle and is covered under folk tale, historical events, current events, spiritual, religious, a fixed item, tangible, physical element (uniquely), and part of a society in brotherhood of VETERANS who served our country for FREEDOM.!!! Do your research. Stockstill, Tiffany (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sources are RELIABLE given the subject. All information are FACTS and can be found throughout the web except for WIKIPEDIA! Stockstill, Tiffany (talk) 00:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bicycle and Bicycle Bell have two separate pages so you component example is non-sense. Stockstill, Tiffany (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Including more references to the subject

Book- The Legend of the Guardian Bell: Motorcycle Folklore by Hollie Bell-Schinzing

I find it strange that you are quick to denote my article but fail to research yourself. It doesn't seem conducive to this platform. You can also visit any Motorcycle rally and look beneath thousands of bikes with 1 inch bells under neath. Furthermore Google Trends shows high volume as attached in my previously removed reference list along with Harley Davidson's story link that was also removed. Stockstill, Tiffany (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, being Motorcycle goes by several story variations and known names throughout the World this makes Motorcycle Bell an Encyclopedic Insert not a simple Dictionary element. The article obviously will need more Wikis adding information to build it further however that's what this platform is used for-to educate on a subject matter. This item is sold massively online which I have no relation to NOR do I profit one penny from it. I found something not listed that should be and you fail to do your own research. Also, if you are a helpful editor, what Are trusted resources in relations to motorcycles? If you can let me know I'm sure I'll further verification for you for my reference list that was edited down to nothing. Thanks in advance. Stockstill, Tiffany (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I've reverted a good-faith page move to Gremlin Bell in the middle of the discussion. Please don't move the article until the discussion is finished, thanks. Storchy (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep At first I thought this was a hoax, partly because of the pervasive in-universe descriptions in the article and the low quality of some of the sources, but it's apparently a real superstition. You can buy these bells on Amazon, too, and things don't get much more real than that! Seriously, though, some of the sources in the article are genuine RS and suffice to clear GNG. This isn't really a merge candidate because these aren't motorcycle parts, they're ritual fetishes. A merge would be like merging dashboard hula statues into automobile. Why is that a redlink, anyway?! Central and Adams (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Guardian bells (or gremlin bells) do seem to be a custom in parts of American bike culture. But the only reliable source cited here that actually talks about the bells is the Fox News reference. The others are about related topics, and not about the bells themselves. The rest of the sources that do mention them here and online are blogs, and a self-published book. The Fox News source can be used for a sentence or two at motorcycle, rather than a whole separate article. Storchy (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

'CommentBold':A little divine help for Motorcyclist added as a citation. by Los Angeles Times a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Stockstill, Tiffany (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Motorcycle reference links are almost non-existent. The item and the story variations are part of Culture. I provided several links to the history of the story including History.com, Harley Davidson, a Poem, a Book and several other sites with no outlinks or ads space all of which have no correlation in domain space to each other to prove that the Motorcycle Bell does exist

Define Culture:Culture (/ˈkʌltʃər/) is an umbrella term which encompasses the social behavior, institutions, and norms found in human societies, as well as the knowledge, beliefs, arts, laws, customs, capabilities, and habits of the individuals in these groups. Culture is often originated from or attributed to a specific region or location.

Humans acquire culture through the learning processes of enculturation and socialization, which is shown by the diversity of cultures across societies. Reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_artifact It's a bell that hangs below a motorcycle and can be proven to exist on any major retail store including Wal-Mart, Amazon, Etsy, Ebay.

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stockstill, Tiffany (talk • contribs) 03:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or as ATD Merge to Talisman: Existence does not prove notability. The article, as written, is confusing. It is not primarily about a motorcycle accessory but a "charm or a symbolic piece of protection to ward off evil spirits", referred to as a talisman. A source from Harley Davidson discussing a charm bell, that they sell with their name on it, is not independent but tends to be promotional. The Popular Mechanics source just literally mentions the name which can give the appearance of loading up an article with sources or gish galloping. The Indian Motorcycle Forum is a "forum" which is what Wikipedia is not. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Encyclopedia covers many books and or sections on a word that stands for many things not a primary definition such as motorcycle accessory. Motor Cycle Bell can be categorized as a Polysemy based on your Delete vote comments. Wikipedia is a Forum (see line 1.c & 3.a), which creates discussion for differential culture experiences or views. Stockstill, Tiffany (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep perhaps with a rename to Guardian Bell or similar. Coverage supports that WP:GNG is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

added

Motorcycle enthusiasts share road, close calls Blessings, and charms

Moore, who rides year round, held a bike blessing April 18 in the parking lot of Big Sandy in Lancaster in conjunction with Salvation Army. Dozens of locals rode in on their bikes for a blessing that day. Moore was among some of the motorcycle ministries members blessing other riders that day. And he received his own blessing."It helps to put their minds at ease," Moore said, explaining that many like to do it because of the high-risk nature of riding motorcycles. USA Today Publisher

"A first-aid kit or a little bell to repel road gremlins are good stocking stuffers. The bell, in fact, works better when received as a gift than if you buy it yourself." Chicago Tribune

Stockstill, Tiffany (talk) 05:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Selective merge to Motorcycling#Subcultures, perhaps to expand it into a "culture" subsection. Not every minor thing that is covered in sources needs coverage at the article level. Sandstein 07:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 04:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jacob Henry (rugby union)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Scotland. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep There's GNG coverage out there, including this, this, and this that I've found from just googling his name. The player is also likely to command further coverage in the future. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep: In addition to the sources above, I was also able to find [16] and [17]. Meets GNG House Blaster^talk 00:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Meets gng with the sources listed above. DavidEfraim (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ferhat Domurcuk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The last AfD received very less participation and was closed as soft delete. I'd like to have more through discussion on this. It doesn't meet GNG or WP:NACTOR even at this moment. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Turkey. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete — I have to echo the UPE concerns again. Most sources are of low quality. I commented on two sources that looked promising at first glance but weren't actually good in the last AfD. Consensus on trwiki says that Haberler (ref 1) isn't reliable, especially about biographies. Ref 2 is reliable, but it's nowhere near significant coverage with three sentences. Ref 3 would be reliable as well, but the content is about him vacationing in Kaş that uses social media posts as reference. The more concerning thing is the bolded message at the very end: "Yasal Uyarı: Bu İçerikten Turkuvaz Medya Sorumlu Değildir", which means "Legal disclaimer: Turkuvaz Medya is not responsible for this content". Then who the fuck is? I'll tell you, this has been sent by the subject (or his manager) to Takvim and they published it in return for some quick bucks. This makes me even more conviced of paid editing going on with the creator, something which they have denied on multiple occasions. From ref 4 onwards the sources are from utter bs publications, not reliable at all, it's mostly "Kimdir?" sources anyway. No significant roles in notable series, no albums from major record labels, no sources. Fails NACTOR, NSINGER and the GNG. ~Styyx^Talk? 19:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I also agree with the above-mentioned assessment. Oaktree b (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete promotional.--Kadı Message 20:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete sources are low quality and dont appear reliable. Zeddedm (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Sources don't appear to be independent of the subject. Pretty much a promotional piece. Keivan.f^Talk 02:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alejandro Badia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to be a resume. The majority of the content is unsourced, and of the 6 sources, 3 are just patents/trademarks, one is a self-published book by the subject, and the last two appear to be press releases. Looking online I can find more PR content, but nothing truly independent. Bilby (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bilby (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, Cuba, and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete appears to be a resume, I find no other sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Non-notable individual with not enough coverage in third party reliable sources. Tinton5 (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forum of Venetians[edit]

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

Unknown party (practically absent in the sources) and existed for a very short time. Page written in a few lines, in practice the party existed and nothing else. It doesn't meet WP:GNG. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. The party was represented for years in the Regional Council of Veneto, a region with 5 million people. However, if there is no consensus on keeping the article, I suggest to merge it with North-East Project (if an article on Diego Cancian is created, information can be moved there). --Checco (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has already been clarified several times that simply being represented by a regional councilor following a split is not a reason for encyclopedicity for a party. Anyway, I have nothing against turning it into redirect and mentioning the split into North-East Project. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as it has no significant coverage, see WP:GNG. It was a "party" made of one person, regional councillor Cancian, that lasted from 2008 to 2009. Yakme (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Honestly, in this case, even the merger would be useless, since the little information is already contained in the North-East Project page. In my view, the only alternative to deleting the page is its transformation into a redirect...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I propose the merger as a possible compromise in order not to lose the article's history. --Checco (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - all the sources I was able to find point to a single press release from the party itself, informing about its establishment. I couldn't find any other secondary source about the life of this party. In my opinion, it is not enough notable to deserve an article in Wikipedia. P1221 (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Monocle 24[edit]

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

Online-only radio stream, part of a UK magazine's website. Does not appear to be notable in its own right, but its parent magazine is. Suggest that a redirect to Monocle (brand) is appropriate. Flip Format (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Organizations, and United Kingdom. Flip Format (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - the content of the article suggests a level of notability, and I suspect some updated editing might qualify that. There is no benefit in either redirecting or merging with the brand article, it is bloated enough as it is, the information about the radio station in the brand article could be checked against the content article up for deletion. JarrahTree 09:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Meets WP:WEB. Sources in the article are reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep the subject passes WP:GNG and WP:WEB with the sources already cited in the article. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dhinchaak 2[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG ( This page was redirected. It has been removed by the user. No new source has been added to it.) PravinGanechari (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PravinGanechari (talk) 08:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:VAGUEWAVE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Josiah Phua Yong Qi[edit]

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

Stats stub with no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC per my searches in Google News, DDG and ProQuest, two of which had no hits at all. If you wish to contest this, please present multiple instances of significant, detailed coverage in WP:RS to demonstrate that GNG is met by Phua. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ali Manaf[edit]

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

Stats stub on a footballer with only 10 mins of football to his name of questionable notability. Google News provides some squad list mentions, none of which meet WP:GNG and some youth coverage which clearly falls short on satisfying WP:YOUNGATH. A Singaporean source search yields nothing useful. ProQuest has one relevant hit, a passing mention in The Straits Times. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Lacks WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I suspect its to early for this article. Maybe in a few years time its worth revisiting. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jarrel Ong[edit]

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

Google News and ProQuest contain the same trivial mention in The Straits Times. A Singaporean source search was fruitless. Stats stub with no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC at this exact moment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Lacks WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amir Mirza[edit]

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

A Singaporean source search yields only basic stats sites and some coverage from Tampines' own website, which is a non-independent source. In Google News, I could only find a trivial mention in Detik, which is an U21 match report. No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 11:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Green Meadows, Indiana[edit]

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

A subdivision which isn't there at all in pre-1960 topos and aerials. No claim for notability so after a de-PROD without explanation, here we are. Mangoe (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep As per WP:GEOLAND, place is appears to be inhabited and although unincorporated is still officially recognised, it just needs to be expanded. N1TH Music (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read WP:GNIS for an explanation of why AfD has not considered GNIS as official recognition for a long time now. Mangoe (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mangoe Good point, but I checked a couple maps and there appear to be buildings there. To pass GEOLAND a place must be both Legally Recognised and populated, all these discrepencies are covered by the fact that the place must also be populated. N1TH Music (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Before I removed the PROD, I looked and found quite a few articles about Green Meadows on newspapers.com, and maybe some others as well. I will come back and post some of them to demonstrate that it satisfies WP:GEOLAND, within a couple of days, unless someone else gets to it first. Jacona (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Here are some articles about cancer clusters in Green Meadows possibly caused by hazardous waste from Purdue University: [18],[19],[20]. More on that subject are available. Then here are some on the governance of the Green Meadows Utility governance (they had their own water and sewage, unlike most run-of-the-mill neighborhoods. [21],[22],[23],[24]. There are many more articles on that subject. There's a lot of other stuff including this, plenty more if you bother to look. [25] Meets WP:GEOLAND, meets WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keepper sources provided. Satifies GNG. Djflem (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Navin J. Manjooran[edit]

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

Not clear that they meet WP:PROF and if being a Fellow of the ASM is sufficient to meet WP:PROF #3 but worth discussing. Board memberships do not appear sufficient for notability. Citation numbers in Google Scholar are not high enough. Gusfriend (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Gusfriend (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep WP:NPROF#3 seems to be the only possible criteria under which they are notable from what I can see. Looking at https://www.asminternational.org/membership/awards/asm-fellows it's clear being a Fellow is a selective honour and not just a membership grade anyone can apply for. I'm only saying weak as I'm not overly familar with ASM International, but it seems to be reputable. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment Other institutions with staff who become ASM International fellows thought it meritied publicity at least, e.g. [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], etc. So whilst they are not exactly independant sources, it indicates to me there is some level of prestiege. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Kj cheetham, universities will run with anything, on the websites and on social media, from volunteering at an animal shelter to (passive) attendance at a workshop. Drmies (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - That's fair. I'd imagine some government labs might be slightly more selective ([33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39],[40]), or at least .mil domains ([41],[42]). Companies are probably keen to promote any awards I admit ([43],[44],[45]), but there's at least one international mention too ([46]). -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete This began as a copyright violation, and ought to have been speedy deleted as such at inception. It's since been rewritten by sockpuppets of the original WP:COI account. Disruptive and promotional edit history aside, the ASM fellowship looks like a pretty thin hook upon which to hang notability. As an aside, ASM International (society) is also a WP:COI piece with promotional issues. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:71F0 (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete since serious secondary sourcing is required not just for the very fact of the fellowship, but also to prove that the organization is "highly selective and prestigious". Drmies (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment I think https://www.asminternational.org/2020-fellows is sufficient to show the fellowship (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD), but agree would need secondary sourcing for the latter part of your argument. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  More specifically WP:PROF says that For documenting that a person has been elected member or fellow (but not for a judgement of whether or not that membership/fellowship is prestigious), publications of the electing institution are considered a reliable source. Gusfriend (talk) 21:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Please see, and contribute to if you have evidence, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brianbrian365. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: I usually defer to DGG's expertise in accepting drafts for academics. In this case I disagree. I do not feel that the quality of the subject's work confers notability. I am concerned about the COI edits and the sockpuppetry. Patents do not confer notability. I can apply for a patent as can anyone. I am not persuaded that Manjooran passes WP:NPROF 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced one way or the other whether Fellow of the ASM is a highly selective honor. In the absence of a clear-cut indication in that regard, and without any indications that other wiki-notability criteria are met, I think cleaning up COI editing is more important. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stanley Page[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No improvement since this was previously up for AfD and almost deleted in 2019. Search in British Newspaper Archive in the 1930s did not yield any significant coverage so the WP:GNG concern is still present. Does not meet criteria for a redirect to List of Mansfield Town F.C. players as has not played 50 games or scored 25 goals for them. Comprehensive searches were already conducted by User:HawkAussie and User:Malcolmxl5 in the previous discussion but these were neutralised by comments saying that Page should be kept due to meeting WP:FOOTYN, which has since been deprecated. I, therefore, believe that a 2nd AfD is a reasonable request. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. Barely passed the previous NFOOTY guideline with a single barely professional match in Football League Third Division North Cup that ended in a lopsided 8-1, and could've been deleted even under the previous NFOOTY. Does not pass GNG. --Mvqr (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Voting the same as in the last AfD. I never saw this as a GNG pass. Govvy (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. I see I left a lengthy argument for deletion in the previous Afd. That still stands. I've made further searches and have come up with nothing. Fails WP:GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Agree with the others. This is an easy call. It’s not even close to meeting the GNG for BLP article inclusion. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clark Stanford[edit]

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

I don't believe this person meets WP:NPROF. None of the criteria aside from #6 seem like they could apply. I considered #6 since he is a dean of the College of Dentistry, but #6 also mandates that the post be at a "major academic institution or major academic society" and I'm not sure the U of Iowa College of Dentistry constitutes a major academic institution. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and Iowa. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Dean is definitely not enough for #C6. I'm not familiar enough with the standards of citation in dentistry to judge his citation counts but with many in the triple digits he may plausibly pass WP:PROF#C1. As the article clearly stated before it was recently anonymously lobotomized, and the nominator should have seen in the history as part of WP:BEFORE, he had a distinguished professor title at his former institution [47] [48], enough for #C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep As David Eppstein said, Dean isn't sufficient, however distinguished professor meets WP:NPROF#5 and notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The article definitely needs some work, but WP:DINC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Distinguished professorship is enough for NPROF C5, even if it isn't his current position. JoelleJay (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: As a distinguished professor, he passes WP:NPROF. Curbon7 (talk) 12:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aidan Kohn-Murphy[edit]

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

No WP:SIGCOV. I don't think this topic meets WP:GNG because all the listed sources are purely focusing on Gen-Z for Change and not its founder. — Tulsi 24x7 05:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Tulsi 24x7 05:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Hi Tulsi. Although most of the sources in the article focus on Gen-Z for Change, many of them include significant coverage of its founder, and two ("Inside the Progressive Movement’s TikTok Army" and "How a Georgetown Day grad's political savvy has made him a TikTok star") are essentially biographies (the latter explicitly, and the the Politico article refers to Kohn-Murphy by name 25 times). I would not have created the article were I not certain that Kohn-Murphy meets the notability criteria, and I believe you will see that this is the case if you read the sources. --CanadianJudoka (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per CanadianJudoka Andre🚐 22:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge - I think merging the article into Gen-Z for Change and Georgetown day school would be a good idea as Tulsi mentioned how that is what most of the sources talk about, although i disagree with deleting the content altogether. I think a redirect from Aidan Kohn-Murphy to Gen-Z for Change would fit well if the article was merged.

𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^(🕷) ^- ^(✉) 12:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If a subject is a main topic of multiple secondary sources and is relevant to more than one Wikipedia article, isn't that a good indication that it warrants an article of its own? I don't have any stake in this and it's a genuine question. I decided to create the Gen-Z for Change article when I read about the organisation in the news and saw that Wikipedia didn't have an article. In the course of researching that article, it was clear that the founder was notable beyond just that function, so I created an article about him as well. Many other people associated with Gen-Z for Change warrant an article as well. Olivia Julianna, another Gen-Z for Change staff member, is an example, but one of the organisation's purposes is to coordinate notable people for political advocacy, so it could be that dozens or more of its members should also have their own articles, regardless of that membership. CanadianJudoka (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mainly because the article doesn't actually contain a lot of information about something other than Gen-Z for Change. I think the few sentences in the articles that aren't about Gen-Z for Change could be added to Gen-Z for Change for more background about the founder, and then the Georgetown Day school stuff could be added to that article 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^(🕷) ^- ^(✉) 19:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, but that's because the article needs to be expanded. The presence or absence of information in an article is not a measure of notability. Also, what made you change your mind about this article? I see that you submitted a draft version of it in July, about ten days before I created this one. CanadianJudoka (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There wasn't a standalone article about Gen-Z for Change when i created the draft article about Aidan Kohn-Murphy, although now there is 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚^(🕷) ^- ^(✉) 19:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maxford Pipe[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete A few games for the Leeward Islands, but I'm not seeing enough for a GNG pass. His footballing career also means there isn't really a suitable redirect here as he the reader could be looking for this footballing or cricketing exploits. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Karl Espley[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

James Drury (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edwin Bacay[edit]

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

A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing on this "aspiring politician" in the Philippines. I thought it was a borderline G11, but there are enough encyclopedic tidbits to merit bringing it here instead. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Philippines. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they did not win, but this neither makes nor sources any claim whatsoever that he has notability for other reasons. Bearcat (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete no reference supporting notability. No prejudice to recreation if he wins a national seat. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per above. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The way it is written he's still an aspiring politician now, but the events in the article were in 2016. Bacay received less than 1% of the vote in his district in 2016. In 2019 and 2022, he apparently didn't run. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per nom and above. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Potato Mound, Indiana[edit]

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

Another puzzle entered into GNIS late in the game, and not from the topos. I can barely find evidence that something in Morgan County was called "Potato Mound", but that is it. Everything else is either clickbait, gazetteers, a spot in Minnesota, and GBooks struggling to come up with somethi8ng, anything. Mangoe (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - Unable to locate any reliable source supporting this was ever a populated place. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BusterD (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lexicon International School Kandy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the requirements of WP:NSCHOOL - the referencing is just a series of mentions in passing - not significant coverage. Dan arndt (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete I’m not finding any RIS coverage in English or Sinhalese. Mccapra (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Works based on dreams. I do, however, note that an alternative merge target, List of Internet phenomena also gained consensus, so if you don't like the first target, feel free to change it to the second. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

King's Hand[edit]

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

Article subject does not meet criteria for notability StandardUser2 (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. The subject is definitely not the most important thing I’ve written about, but it still does meet notability criteria. It’s admittedly on the edge in terms of range of existing coverage (there is a refreshing amount of original reporting for such a “small” story, but on the other hand the high-quality coverage is mostly clustered together in time), but as per my previous writing on the importance of covering “weird” or “trivial” (not to be confused with non-notable) subjects on Wikipedia, I’m personally in favor of inclusion. Yitz (talk) 06:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plenty of short-lived Internet phenomena like this get this amount of coverage, given the nature of news media as well as social media nowadays. I don't see how it would qualify as having "significant" coverage. I even find it kind of absurd that the subject of the article is treated as an ordinary food topic. Outside a two-month window of trivial news reporting (which isn't sufficient to attribute it any notability as per WP:SBST), this dish has no real world presence, not even as a joke dish. In my opinion, the substance of the article boils down to a semi-viral tweet which got a few minor articles written about it, which would not make it notable. StandardUser2 (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Delete.~~ (See below.) Yitz, I know you've put a considerable amount of work into the article, and for what it is it's well-attested and well-written. But ultimately, it was a three-week fad that died out almost two years ago, and there's not really a lot of value to be had in its having its own page in 2022. I believe that King's Hand belongs, if anywhere, as an entry in the List of Internet phenomena. Etherjammer (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. Straight from the WP:Notability:

Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.

This clearly meets the requirements of notability, and the only reason to delete it is specifically called out as non-valid. The article is high-quality, so absent any other reason for deletion should be kept. Nickelpro (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would argue the subject was not notable to begin with. Wikipedia:NTEMP even says "While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion". As I've previously discussed, Wikipedia:SBST states "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage". Other users have suggested that the subject of the article be merged into larger lists, like List of Internet phenomena or Works based on dreams, which I find much more appropriate. Wikipedia isn't supposed to have a standalone article for every quaint Internet story that the media inevitably picks up as part of their routine news reporting. The article is well-written, but that isn't enough to keep it on Wikipedia. StandardUser2 (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except this is not "routine" coverage. This is not traffic conditions, weather report, crime blotter, etc. This is a singular notable phenomenon, there is nothing routine about it. Therefore Wikipedia:SBST does not apply. Nickelpro (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to Works based on dreams per WP:EVENT (Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.) Two years on the story doesn't seem to have had significant WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, with all press stories ending after a couple of weeks, and even the "strangest food combinations of 2020" mention being within that window, the Hand having been created in December 2020. All I can find that post-dates that is a mention in a "Twitter's Best Moments" listicle from April 2022. --Lord Belbury (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Thanks @Lord Belbury(and everyone else in this discussion) for the compliments and for making some excellent arguments for deletion/merging. My current position after going through them is that the page is definitely on the edge of notability, but still falls on the side of inclusion, at least under my reading of the MoS (which may of course be biased, so take with appropriate salt). Specifically, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE states the following (emphasis my own): “Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article……editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not……If an event is cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, this may be an indication of lasting significance..” The “without further analysis or discussion” carries a lot of weight here, in my opinion. Purely factual reporting of a situation for a limited duration does not a notable event make, but (under current guidelines) if there’s significant analysis or discussion made at the time (as has happened here), then even if the event is temporally limited, it can still be notable. It’s also worth noting that it has indeed been cited in 2022, as @Lord Belbury has pointed out, albeit only once rather than multiple times so far. This two year renewal of coverage (as relatively trivial as it is) suggests to me that the media has not forgotten about the King’s Hand, and I would place significant probability on it being cited again in the future. One reason for my confidence in this is that I have seen multiple, recent viral tweets which mention the dish, as well as people who are still replicating it for personal consumption (although the number of people I’ve seen doing that is small). This is not direct evidence for notability, but imo does give weight to the possibility that one more future article will cite it as a case study, at the very least (which would make it unambiguously pass notability). As such, I don’t think calling this a dead passing fad provides sufficient reason for deletion/merging. Yitz (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure these sources really show significant further analysis or discussion. They write about a viral tweet at the time of its popularity, some lightly interview the tweeter, and some copy and paste contemporary tweets of other people describing their food dreams. The interview quotes are a cut above the generic coverage that you'd be able to find for any meme of any week, but it's very much still the at the "softball Q&A" end of Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability.

The 2022 Intelligencer article is asking 24 of its staff to name their favourite Twitter moment, and one person picks the Hand. People haven't forgotten the Hand and future in-depth works may yet be written about it, but the same goes for a lot of memes and ideas which still see use but haven't really been written about. You can browse Category:Internet memes introduced in the 2020s to see how much weight something generally needs to get a full article rather than an italicised redirect to a wider subject.

I'm glad that you managed to get a King's Hand image solidly CC-licenced at the time, though, which would allow the hand to live on, with photo, if it were merged elsewhere. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect - to Works based on dreams per Lord Belbury's analysis. Per WP:PERSISTENCE, there's not enough lasting significance for the subject to warrant a standalone article. However the image and some content is already at the redirect target, so the Hand of the King will live on, unlike some other Hands of the King who shall go unnamed. - Aoidh (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The article cites numerous sources published in December 2020 when King's Hand was introduced. Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Duration of coverage says, "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle." The subject was discussed in two sources in 2022, over one year after the initial burst of coverage in December 2020:
1. Schwartz, Erin (2022-04-27). "24 Twitter Moments We Treasure Sure, it's hell. But what about the magic?". New York. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.
  The article notes: "As with Cassandra, it came to him in a dream: a hollow M&M’s cookie shaped like a hand and filled with Greek salad, a dish that Twitter user @thatfrood re-created using a silicone mold with M&M’s marking the knuckle bones. The King’s Hand moment was full of the toothsome weirdness I associate with a certain corner of Twitter. Like an image that circulated in 2019 doctored to mimic the feeling of having a stroke, the impression it produces becomes less clear the longer you contemplate it: Which king’s hand is this? Are we honoring him or cannibalizing him? (@Thatfrood told BuzzFeed News that, in his dream, it was the main course of a festival feast.) It’s ornate, ceremonial, childish. “I was thinking, This doesn’t make sense,” he told BuzzFeed. “But of course it doesn’t make sense. I saw it in a dream.”"
2. Robinson, Nathan J. (2022-02-28). "World of Our Dreams". Current Affairs. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.
  The article notes: "On Twitter, people sometimes post attempts to recreate strange memes or products that existed in their dreams. One user had a dream in which people ate a food called “King’s Hand,” a “hollow [human] hand made of M&M cookie, filled with Greek salad.” He chronicled his exhaustive quest to recreate the (disgusting) dessert, which other users replicated. (The “King’s Hand” now has its own Wikipedia entry and was featured on the Today Show.)"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow King's Hand' to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
I oppose a merge to Works based on dreams as there is enough information for a standalone article. A merge would be undue weight or would result in the loss of sourced, encyclopedic content.
Cunard (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. And wondering about the influx of new editors posting nominations at AFD....
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Liz I noticed this nomination happened the day after Depths of Wikipedia tweeted about the page and it went viral (again, this time as far as I know not because of me), leading to a massive spike in views. I'd assume that explains why this AfD happened (more eyes means more chances for critique to come up, usually), though that doesn't explain the more general rise in new AfD nominators. @StandardUser2, may I ask how you discovered the page? Yitz (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Found it on r/wikipedia about a few days before I made this thread. That post might've been shared after the Depths of Wikipedia tweet, though I was not aware of it. I wouldn't know why new nominators are coming in though, didn't expect this AfD to go for so long lol. I will admit I am new to Wikipedia editing after years of lurking. I made this AfD after reading some old thread on the King's Hand talk page. Could you link the Depths of Wikipedia tweet? Thanks. StandardUser2 (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure! It turns out I was slightly mistaken, the link is to Works based on dreams, not King's hand directly, but a lot of the comments below it are about the King's Hand. Here's the link: [49] By the way, welcome @StandardUser2 to the delightful (and sometimes very drawn out!) world of Wikipedia editing and its internal politics; I'm glad you're with us, and look forward to seeing what you contribute! :) Yitz (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Flash in the pan, fails WP:SUSTAINED, more recent coverage brought up by Cunard is only passing, and does not add to notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I an also okay with a merge to list of internet phenomena and/or works based on dreams. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

delete This could just as well be nuked from orbit on a ignore all rules basis, but no, we are not here to chronicle every minor fad that got picked up and passed around for a few weeks. 04:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoe (talk • contribs)
Question (hope it's okay to ask this here): While this deletion discussion is ongoing, would it be okay if I reached out to a journalist I know (who regularly writes about internet culture) about the possibility of them covering the King's Hand? I'm not sure if that would be against any rules (either directly or in spirit), but my goal there would be to speed along a story that I suspect will come out later with or without my input, and it seems silly to wait on that if the page is going to be deleted then reconstructed soon after. (note that I do not have access to any non-public information here; this projection is just based on my understanding of how the media works.). Obviously I don't want to cause any WP:MEATPUPPET headaches, so if I do this I'd explicitly ask for the current AfD situation not to be mentioned unless/until the process is closed. If the answer to the above is "omg no please don't do that while an AfD is going on," would it be okay to do it if the page does end up deleted/kept? Yitz (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you think the page is likely to get coverage that will make it viable later, the you are free to move a copy to your userspace. In that case, the reconstruction will take exactly zero effort. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hemiauchenia is WP:USERFY#NO a concern? My understanding is that I would be required to move contribution history as well, which would require administrator action to do (though I may be misunderstanding; the page isn't very clear on that). Yitz (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yitzilitt: I don't think so, as you are the primary contributor. You can always just credit people in the edit history somewhere like on the articles taklpage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep or Merge Every single entry on List of Internet challenges for example is just as flash-in-the-pan. --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 17:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge into List of Internet phenomena or Works based on dreams. Does and will not have lasting significant coverage. $ɱ$ (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge into List of Internet phenomena or Works based on dreams. Lord Belbury's argument (and others'!) above is compelling, while I find Cunard's continuing-coverage sources to be less so; one of them seems to be based at least in part on the fact that King's Hand has a Wikipedia page, which is a self-sustaining loop unless we interrupt it, and one is simply a list of "our favorite Twitter moments", which is less coverage and more a single person's reminiscence in a clickbait feature. I maintain my earlier objection that this was a brief fad, and that if you check other entries on the List of Internet phenomena or List of Internet challenges, you'll find equivalent coverage in secondary sources, because many of these sites are driven by "what's everybody talking about today?" clicks and have pages that could easily be dropped a week after publication with little to no notice. Should we have separate pages for The Ridiculous Order Dunkin' Workers Were Literally Crying Over or Reddit Is Cracking Up Over An Aldi Pizza Mistake? -- Etherjammer (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found this article helpful and insightful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:3C09:E501:941A:E3A9:9862:8E1E (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to List of Internet phenomena - I agree with the others above that this topic fails WP:SUSTAINED - the two recent articles brought up above are extremely short, trivial mentions, and not significant coverage. Like many other viral internet fads, it got a bit of coverage when the fad first took off, but then faded into obscurity just as fast after, and has no real sustained notability, as evidenced by the fact that the only two pieces of recent coverage that anyone has found so far is almost nothing. Merging would also preserve the article's history, so if, as Yitz mentioned above, sources come out in the future that do demonstrate sustained notability, it would be an easy matter to restore the page back out from that merge. Rorshacma (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Some support for Keeping this article and some for Merge but several Merge targets are recommended. Does one have more support in this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge to List of Internet phenomena: "Works based on dreams" is a fun idea, but RSes treated this as a viral sensation, not a serious culinary invention. I also agree that WP:PERSISTENCE just isn't met here: Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I found this article because the item was referenced in a lively FB discussion today. Did some searching and it comes up pretty often. 2 years later, that level of attention is not a "flash in the pan." If Merged, probably should go to Internet Phenomenon, not Works from Dreams. JamesG5 (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JamesG5: Does it come up in reliable sources often these days, or just in facebook groups? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

many things considered notable in the past get discussed now but aren't continually covered because they're not ongoing. Note I did say Merge was a valid choice & weighed in on that as requested in relisting. JamesG5 (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge, per above points on lacking sustained/persistent coverage, as alternative to deletion. czar 16:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Works based on dreams Bruxton (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (withdrawn). (non-admin closure) — Coolperson177 (t|c) 22:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aftab Sultan[edit]

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

~~BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO- lacks in-depth coverage and WP:BIO1E applies. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)~~Reply[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Keep Chairman of National_Accountability_Bureau this should be enough to meet WP:N all the other chairmen Template:Chairmen of the National Accountability Bureau have articles this should be enough precedence. KSAWikipedian (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep under WP:NPOL – leads a major agency under the Pakistani government, a nationwide (federal) office. Also, a cursory search is revealing a good many sources that look promising for GNG. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Theleekycauldron Can you point to the specific sources to back that up for GNG? -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Kj cheetham, funnily enough, I just added five more sources to the article. While three cover Sultan becoming chairman, the other two support information on his career in Pakistan's Intelligence Bureau. Could you take a look at those? — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. See my comment above. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 19:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Whilst some of the sources aren't significant coverage, I think overall there's enough to meet WP:GNG, if not WP:NPOL. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Steven Austin (footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Avilich (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fadel Settara[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Algeria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mohamed Belgherbi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Algeria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eris Muhandes[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Afghanistan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brahim Ouahid[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Algeria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kamel Maouche[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Algeria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kadima Mungusso[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Angola. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dave Kelly (broadcaster)[edit]

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

Non-notable local radio DJ who has moved around different local stations, does not meet WP:NBIO Flip Format (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and United Kingdom. Flip Format (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep: Again, just because someone has worked an a number of stations in their career does not make them non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rillington (talk • contribs) 12:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Keep~~: Agreed. Plus the article has a number of independent references. Rillington (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Not notable radio artist Hargovindkhurana (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 03:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per analysis below, and the fact that just because something doesn't preclude notability doesn't mean that something guarantees it, either. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/jun/11/margherita-taylor-capital-radio			passing mention	✘ No
http://www.how-do.co.uk/north-west-media-news/north-west-broadcasting/capital-fm%92s-dave-kelly-to-replace-neil-fitzmaurice-at-radio-city-2011041110739	? inaccessible, link rot	seems to be a relatively short-lived blog	? inaccessible	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20120626040016/http://www.radiocity.co.uk/on-air/shows-and-presenters/dave-kelly/	either self-written or staff-written for a Radio City presenter	Maybe as a WP:ABOUTSELF?	i suppose so	✘ No
http://www.key103.co.uk/on-air/station-schedule/	sure why not	again, why not	inaccessible, but the link is to "station schedule" which does not give me confidence	✘ 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)).

Delete. From leeky's analysis, I conclude that the sourcing is subpar to warrant an article. While the presenter may have worked in multiple locations, short of adding sources, the notability isn't here. SWinxy (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fiona McIntosh#Valisar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Valisar Trilogy[edit]

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

I've prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". PROD was removed by an anon with no edit summary, despite my request for deprodding rationale. Note that the first book in the series has been proven notable in the recent AfD, while the second and third book have not (discussions are ongoing but leaning towards merge/redirects). No source that I am aware of provides WP:SIGCOV of the trilogy, the best I can think of is redirecting this either to the first book in the series or to Fiona McIntosh#Valisar. PS. Link to one of related AfDs which links to the other two: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King's Wrath. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Australia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete I don’t find any coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Fiona McIntosh#Valisar (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion as was done for the two books in the trilogy that did not pass Wikipedia:Notability (books). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King's Wrath and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyrant's Blood for those AfDs. Cunard (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge or redirect to WP:PRESERVE. Even without notability these are a verifiable part of the author's bibliography. Archrogue (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect per nom and WP:ATD to Fiona McIntosh#Valisar. There's no refs that indicate WP:GNG being met, I disagree with the merging rationale, as there are no RS at all suitable to merge (nor any indepedent refs, excepting the author's own website). VickKiang (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 01:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duncan Lay[edit]

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

This appears to be a PR piece on a non-notable person. Kb.au (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. A lot of people have "written a fantasy trilogy" these days. It takes more than books existing to be notable. BD2412 T 01:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - not seeing independent coverage. There is this piece here in a reliable source, but the article subject is its author. Insufficient notability to meet GNG or WP:AUTHOR. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete: A lot of mentions in Sydney's Daily Telegraph, all of it – to quote Sam Kean in The Disappearing Spoon – "less than frickin' helpful". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Austlit lists 6 reviews and a column [50]. Two reviews are from Infinitas Newsletter which might not rise to the status of a reliable source but the others are OK. Austlit also shows more books [51] as does other sources, a "second fantasy series, Bridge of Swords". Following is some other sources found. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Short review - Hughes, Janet (9 June 2013), "Book Review", The Daily Telegraph

Review - Lang, Rebecca (11 September 2009), "New face of fantasy writing in Oz", Manly Daily
Short review - Moore, Scott (15 August 2009), "Fantasy", The Advertiser
- I'm not sure I'm convinced – do the reviews you've found contain significant coverage of the author, or just the books? I can't access them. Also, do we consider The Daily Telegraph down under reliable? I'm not sure I'd be on board with that assessment... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:00, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Daily Telegraph is absolutely reliable for most things. Political opinion - yeah nah I'd wanna take a closer look at that. Kinda like Fox News, which Murdoch also owns - would I trust their weatherperson? Yes. Tucker Carlson on national security advice? Nah. Each source on it's merits I say. That said I agree, I do not think the book reviews count as significant coverage of the author. There is not sufficient depth of coverage to warrant a stand alone article of the author. MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mister International. ✗plicit 01:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mister International 2018[edit]

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

No evidence that this is a notable instance of a pageant. ... discospinster _talk 00:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants, Philippines, and Vietnam. ... discospinster _talk 00:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Mister International. BD2412 T 01:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirect to Mister International. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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