< August 24	August 26 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the nominator may have come to AfD looking for an enforced merge or a rename, I do not see a consensus for either. Numerically and policy-wise, there is a clear consensus to delete. Arguments in favor of keeping tend to fall along the lines of Its useful! or I like it!. Both have been found to be poor arguments by the community. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of counties in Colorado/detail[edit]

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

These were split from their parent articles List of counties in Colorado with this edit and List of municipalities in Colorado with this edit without any attribution by Buaidh. Since subpages are not allowed in mainspace, these should be merged back into their respective list articles without leaving a redirect, or if there is a desire to keep these separate, they should be moved to a separate descriptive or disambiguated title. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are no objections, I will move these illegal subpages to the List of counties in Colorado: details and the List of municipalities in Colorado: details. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 23:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure a colon is appropriate when a backslash is not, but in any case, nothing should be done until consensus is reached and the discussion is closed. Moving pages during a discussion just creates a mess (and creates redirects unless they are suppressed) and causes confusion. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: These two pages contain tables of detailed information used to populate many Colorado-related articles. These two table are sufficiently large that including them in the main articles would disadvantage users with phones and other small screen devices, so I moved them to these secondary articles. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 00:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPLITLISTs are certainly valid, but they need descriptive names. I am not sure what would be best. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The new pages contain a lot of data in a single place that will prove helpful to researchers. Perhaps a title like Statistical abstract of Colorado counties is more fitting, for the pages are not mere lists. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not really seeing why this is a valid split list. The only additional detail listed in this table is elevation, and a column could easily be added to the main list for that. AFAIK there aren't similar articles for other states. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the fact that other articles don't have something is a good reason not to eliminate something. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 22:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another Listcruft. Lorstaking 16:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Listcruft or not, these lists are actively used by WikiProject Colorado. Perhaps they should have a say.

When the List of municipalities in Colorado was nominated for Featured List, the main complaint was that the table was far too wide. Moving the original table to the List of municipalities in Colorado: details was intended to remedy this problem. This also eliminated the need for a separate table of Municipalities in multiple counties.

The List of municipalities in Colorado uses the List of municipalities in Colorado provide the coordinates for its GeoGroup. Likewise, the List of counties in Colorado uses the List of counties in Colorado provide the coordinates for its GeoGroup. Yours aye, Buaidh talk e-mail 22:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. There is redundant content with the parent article and per Lorstaking WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay based on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#DIRECTORY that is policy. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As nom, I'd like to clarify that I am not advocating for deletion of the content, only the page. The current situation is untenable, so the content should either be merged back, or the pages moved to new titles. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is a duplication. As an ATD someone can merge with List of counties in Colorado or we can redirect which would preserve the history. Lightburst (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These articles were split from their parents with content not found there, so they are not duplications. As I've said, I favor them either being merged back (without a redirect) or moved to appropriate titles. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. The nominator proposed a merge but there seems to be more support for an outright deletion of these pages. Would those advocating Keep be amenable to a merge? The one thing that is clear is that these pages can not remain at these titles. Please do not move the articles in question during this AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: for legal reasons, we cannot merge and delete the redirect. We could move the redirect to a different valid redirect, but we cannot delete it. All of the stats exclusive to the detailed list are contrary to WP:NOTDATABASE. Listing population is fine, but growth and past size are not needed. Finally, per the explicit examples in WP:LOCALCON, WikiProjects have no special influence in the consensus-making process (such as deciding to exempt themselves from NOTDATABASE). In sum, I do not see anything that can be merged, so I support deleting the entire page. House Blaster^talk 23:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two similiar lists. delete or merge. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let's not be hasty here. The creating editor(s) have painstakingly constructed a two-page system which is functional and a little bit elaborate, with a lot of info. And they complied with requirements set by other editors (for achieving "Good list" rating, or whatever), and they've complied with "legal reasons" for whatever, too. This AFD is a brand new (for these articles) process and time must be allowed to sort out a different solution. Pressing for immediate "Delete" is just unhelpful. Perhaps this should be admin closed and taken out of the AFD domain, to allow for refinements that are satisfactory to the editors. The two-page system, at least if some issues are worked out, may well be a model for improving all the other U.S. states' corresponding pages. --Doncram (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Possible refinements I have experience with many big list systems especially related to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), although I have not been a "Featured list" or "Good list" (is that a thing?) reviewer nor have I ever achieved a FL rating, and I personally think this two-list system is neat. But note that the main list has a lot of white space, which means there is opportunity for rewriting to make the information denser. In some lists I have saved space by combining multiple pieces of info into one column, e.g. put street address, city or town, and coordinates into one "location" column. E.g. put both "Year built" and "Year listed on the National Register of Historic Places" into one column that is sortable by the "Year built". Here are some possibly helpful ideas and some questions, towards working out a system that is fully satisfactory to "everyone that matters", which might not be everyone here, no offense intended. I will write in named issue areas; feel free to insert comments. --Doncram (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FIPS code How about drop the FIPS code column from List of counties in Colorado, either by completely dropping the codes or by placing the codes into another column, say in parentheses beneath the county name, filling in some white space? I personally don't see the usefulness of FIPS code in any way for myself, or for most readers. I don't really know what it is, and have to look it up, and see that it is just an assigned number. Like the NRHP reference number, it's arbitrary and shouldn't necessarily be presented. Or as a lesser importance item, it can be kept but subordinated under the county name, so that it is still available, and a reader could run a search for a given FIPS number say to find which county it applies to, while letting go the (not too important) functionaliy of allowing sorting by FIPS code. Few readers are arriving with either an NRHP reference number or a FIPS number that they want to look up, anyhow. And, further, per Federal Information Processing Standards#Withdrawal of geographic codes, it seems the FIPS code is being retired from wide use, so it may be of less and less interest. Perhaps there is a state or Federal source online that provides the correspondence of FIPS codes to counties, and that could be mentioned with a link for readers who do want that. --Doncram (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review issues / table width: The main list appears not to be a wp:Featured list, and the Talk page provides no link to any FL review. Reviewer requirements were mentioned above somewhere, perhaps stated in reference to a different similar list. Please provide a link to the discussion. Perhaps the reviewers were stupid and should be ignored. Perhaps we don't care because this is not being developed for FL listing. Maybe there will be future wikimedia software developments which magically help display for mobile device users, say by allowing them to toggle between viewing all the columns vs. viewing just selected columns. So....why not just go ahead and make the main list wider. I saw mention of concern for readers of mobile devices or other small-screen viewers, if a table is wide. Is that really so bad, that they would have to scroll over to the right to see some of the columns? Probably the more important info should be to the left. Anyhow, let's look into what really matters, not just accept that a screen which requires scrolling is unacceptable. --Doncram (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anger about duplication: In comments above, to me it seems there is possibly unreasonable anger about the fact that there is duplication between the two tables, and extreme statements that the duplication simply must be eliminated by deletion or merger. I don't know what the problem is, really, but how about present the two tables differently. So, instead of having a main, limited table and a secondary table duplicating all of that and adding more, how about removing most of the duplicating columns from the second table. Just call it "List of geographical facts for Colorado counties", or "Additional info by county in Colorado" or something like that. And keep ALL of the info, just in two tables with no duplication except the "County name" column. --Doncram (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

County seat. This seems like fine info to keep, but how about subordinate it under the county name in the first column, which becomes "County name / (County seat)" or "County name / (County seat) / FIPS". Being subordinated, the table would not be sortable by county seat name, but maybe that is of lesser imprtance than info which can then be included in another column. --Doncram (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone including children, and all this stuff is traditional and useful, and where are the policy issues?. Having a bunch of sortable columns is fun, to a degree, for children, and it is neat to be able to see which are ranked high when sorted by elevation minimums rather than by elevation maximums, etc. Keep all of the info in List of counties in Colorado/detail. Arguments above assert policy issues but don't hold water as far as i can tell.

User:Presidentman !votes "Delete" because "I'm not really seeing why this is a valid split list." What??? Please show me where "split list" is a matter of policy. --Doncram (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See, for example, WP:SPLITLIST. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lorstaking dismisses the list because it is "just Listcruft". In fact this list does not suffer from any of the bad things covered at wp:LISTCRUFT. The info is objective, requires little or no maintenance, does not require adopting a non-neural view, is not original research, etc. Out of all the criteria for "LISTCRUFT", perhaps most possibly relevant is: "The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information? But follow that link and you see that what is bad are "Lyrics databases" (this is not one), "Summary-only descriptions of works" (this is not one), "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" (everything here is immediately understandable, there is no confusion at all), and "Exhaustive logs of software updates" (this is not one). Okay, then, but "Listcruft" states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Fine, this page has true, verifiable info. "Listcruft" does NOT say that true, verifiable info is unsuitable. I happen to think this is very good for an encyclopedia, to have accessible info, like for children especially. Like the "Childcraft" encyclopedia or encyclopedia-like set of books that I devoured as a child, was so wonderful. I see no policy issue here.
User:Otr500 states: "There is redundant content with the parent article and per Lorstaking WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay based on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#DIRECTORY that is policy." I don't see any link to any policy outlawing "redundant content". I have dismissed Listcruft above. About "Wikipedia is not a directory", that is about publishing ephemera like opening hours and phone numbers for museums in a list, say. Check wp:NOTDIRECTORY; there is no complaint there which applies here.
User:Lightburst states "it is a duplication". So what if there is one column, or several columns, in this article which appear in another article too. Note another list by Colorado county is List of Colorado county high points; should we delete the county name column out of that because county names are already listed elsewhere? I don't see any policy issue. --Doncram (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, there are no policy issues as far as I can tell, so the outcome here should simply be "Keep". That said, perhaps there are some changes which might be made, as editorial matters of organizing information, and I wonder what User:Buaidh thinks now? --Doncram (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a policy issue here as I noted in my nom, that WP:SUBPAGES are not allowed in mainspace. So the content must either be merged back to where it was split from, or the pages moved to appropriate titles. So "Keep" is not an acceptable outcome. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments': Aside from the above mentioned WP:SUBPAGES, I think at least one is taking a very argumentative and final authority approach to the arguments for keep. Not sure why "unreasonable anger" was mentioned at all. It has been my less non-tenured (edit count wise) time on Wikipedia that the closing of the discussion be determined by --- the closer. Wikipedia is not a text book, statistics table, or database. Maybe I need to cast the page on my 60" TV (17" is not enough) so I can see the whole bunch of figures without scrolling. I imagine it would really play hell viewing on a tablet or cell phone per the creators rationale ("would disadvantage users with phones and other small screen devices") for the page. It seems most of this would be of use to a specialist (serious researcher of some degree) and not the average reader. I cannot imagine the world where kids would enjoy playing with sortable columns. To me (we are allowed opinions) this, as a stand alone list, is unneeded and unencyclopedic bunch of intricate details. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2022 European Cadet Judo Championships. valid ATD Star Mississippi 02:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 European Cadet Judo Championships – Mixed team[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Croatia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've added more information and sources. Please note WP:NOTFINISHED: Wikipedia is a living document, constantly improving and expanding. It will never be a finished work.. Let us continue to improve upon this article, not delete it. CLalgo (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources on the article currently are from the IJF or EJF, both of which are not independent of this event. This is a clear fail of WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. There is a JudoInside.com source as well. CLalgo (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More over, I haven't found WP:NOTDATABASE's & WP:SIGCOV's relevance to this case. Please, see WP:JUSTAPOLICY: While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why..
As JudoInside is a reliable, secondary source, SIGCOV\GNG falls. NOTDATABASE says nothing on sports articles as far as I can tell. CLalgo (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTDATABASE. The sources provided by CLalgo are not independent of the event in question, and I have yet to come across any coverage that suggests WP:GNG is met. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 03:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One should not delete, if there is a page to redirect it to (2022 European Cadet Judo Championships). Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

redirect: redirect it to (2022 European Cadet Judo Championships).
Comment There is no evidence that this topic deserves its own WP page. There is no significant independent coverage nor is there any reason to think this event for 15-17 year olds is historically significant. In fact, the article on the entire tournament has no significant independent coverage so I have difficulty supporting a redirect, although that's quite likely to be the result. Papaursa (talk) 22:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mehboob Alam Shah[edit]

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

The subject of the page is unclear and lacks even basic context (a date for instance), let alone notability. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and Islam. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shah Jewna. The two names are related per[1]. Jahaza (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clearer, these appear to be 2 different names for the same saint.--Jahaza (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, per nom. If it is an alternate name for Shah Jewna then a redirect is fine, but need to be certain it is the same first. If in doubt, deletion is better. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, leaning against redirection as I don't see Mehboob Alam Shah mentioned on the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be a well made article. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Kumagai[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claims here are that he's a city councillor in a midsized community and an as yet non-winning candidate in a future election to higher office, but neither of those are automatic inclusion freebies -- city councillors are presumed notable only in internationally prominent global cities on the order of Los Angeles, New York City, Toronto or London, candidates are accepted as notable only if they already had preexisting notability for other reasons, and the only slim chance either a city councillor or a candidate has otherwise is to show such a deeply unexpected volume and depth of nationalizing coverage that they have a credible claim to being a special case of much greater national prominence than the norm.
But that's not what this article is showing: with 29 footnotes it looks well-sourced on the surface, but it's actually just reference bombing him with a mixture of primary sources, glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him in any non-trivial way, reduplicated repetition of the same citation two or three times instead of using the proper name-and-callback format, and the purely run of the mill local coverage that any person in either of these roles would merely be expected to have in their local media, not evincing any proof that he could be seen as more notable than other city council colleagues or other candidates on the same state legislature ballot.
Obviously this is without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the state legislature seat, but nothing here is sufficient grounds for him to already have a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find many sources which were not already cited, and these sources are insufficient to prove notability as the nominator suggests. No significant coverage appears forthcoming. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: so we can pull it back if he wins. Otherwise, not notable at the moment (fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL). Curbon7 (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for draftifying or should this article just be deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete refbombs, wow. non-notable.Oaktree b (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a local politician, fails WP:NPOL. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Beauty Industry Awards[edit]

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

completely non-notable award, no meaningful independent, in depth coverage PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article certainly meets WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. It is a notable award with several in-depth articles from independent sources such as:

Many articles are from peer-reviewed and top beauty industry websites. You can also see Category:Makeup awards and see that there are more than a dozen other less notable articles. Geodudegolem (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The above provided citations provided by Geodudegolem demonstrate notability. Meets WP:GNG.Lovewiki106 (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do not agree with nom. Meets notability based a few of these sources above. Zeddedm (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In what universe is this or any of the others "peer reviewed"? These are mostly blackhat, passing announcements and otherwise not in depth coverage. None of the sources are substantially ABOUT IBIA and they're certainly not "top" publications. This is a useless blog, and the other two definitely aren't any sort of authoratative or reliable sources. The fact that other articles exist that shouldn't is completely irrelevant. PICKLEDICAE🥒 10:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with new references added. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against further discussion on renaming this article. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filbert Street (San Francisco)[edit]

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

Filbert Street is an ordinary east-west street in San Franicisco and does not meet WP:NGEO. It is not a main road, nor an arterial street, nor a shopping district, nor is the street itself particularly historic. It does contain a notable feature, the Filbert Steps, a San Francisco landmark that I believe does meet WP:NGEO. An earlier article on Filbert Steps was merged into this one as superfluous - unfortunately, this was backwards, as Filbert Street itself is a non-notable feature. I would Propose to Merge, but that creates a redirect for "Filbert Street" to "Filbert Steps", which has its own set of problems. I am proposing to manually merge the content on Filbert Steps into another article, either Filbert Steps itself, or better, the Telegraph Hill, San Francisco article, with a newly added section on the step streets of Telegraph Hill, including the Filbert, Greenwich, and Vallejo steps. Peter G Werner (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city^‽ 06:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given the nom's intent, I suggest draftification until Telegraph Hill, San Francisco contains the relevant content, at which point it could be moved back into mainspace and redirected there (for attribution purposes). Ovinus (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I added the steps info to the Telegraph Hill, San Francisco article. I agree that the street itself is not notable. Lamona (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I lean towards. It also allows some discussion of the nearby Greenwich Street and Vallejo Street steps without creating separate articles. Peter G Werner (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly rename to Filbert Steps - I think https://www.kqed.org/news/11907457/how-the-filbert-steps-came-to-be-an-oasis-in-san-francisco and https://www.sfgate.com/health/article/filbert-steps-sf-grace-marchant-napier-lane-coit-16296781.php is non-trivial coverage of the streets or steps and thus maybe the article should be rewritten to focus on the steps. There is also https://www.sfgate.com/local/editorspicks/article/Where-is-San-Francisco-steepest-street-15374214.php which briefly and trivially mentions Filbert Street and https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2022/top-san-francisco-things-to-do-2022/ which does the same. Thus it probably meets the WP:GNG. I have lived in the Bay Area for 20 years and this street is iconic, but not as iconic as Lombard Street. If this topic is not notable it may be good to do a proper merge with Telegraph Hill, San Francisco. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 22:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, simply. IMHO the deletion nomination should not have been made. The nominator basically wishes to move the substantial topic back to Filbert Steps, from which it came (or from which the most notable info came). That should have been submitted as a wp:RM. Offhand, that doesn't make sense to do, because "Filbert Street" is the geographically larger topic and it is fine to cover Filbert Steps as a relatively huge section within that. Allowing for additions of more info about notable happenings, history, buildings, etc. at other places along Filbert Street which add to the notability of the street. But the reverse doesn't work, it doesn't make sense to be covering the street and various places along it, within an article about the steps. It is also logically possible to have two articles, as if Filbert Street is a historic district (and in fact it is, but not yet listed as such on the National Register of Historic Places) and Filbert Steps is an individual place (like a contributing building or object in an NRHP historic district, or like a place separately listed on the NRHP which happens to be within the district. In NRHP writing, it would never be done, to relegate a big historic district's coverage into a section of an article about one place in the district. Also, I think many long historic streets in San Francisco probably deserves explicit coverage eventually, either as an article or a section in a neighborhood or historic district article. --Doncram (talk) 22:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, I'm curious about what content you think this article could have besides the Filbert Steps. In addition, what would the sources be for that content? As it stands, the article does not have any references for the street itself and I am not able to find any. Lamona (talk) 05:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one thing it could cover is registered historic places (which is what I edit most about in Wikipedia) along the street. At National Register of Historic Places listings in San Francisco, I don't see any places with Filbert address which are individually NRHP-listed. But do any of the historic districts in that list span Filbert? If so then there is detailed info available about Filbert buildings. Also there may be coverage of Filbert buildings in any City of San Francisco local historic registry program. Another thing I'd do is "take a walk" down the street in Google Streetview, and inspect for apparently notable monuments or other objects, buildings, etc. --Doncram (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On this topic, yes, Filbert Street does have some historic buildings along the length of it, but that does not make the street notable in itself. (I know the street well, since I used to live on a perfectly ordinary block of Filbert in Cow Hollow for a few years when I was a child.) I'll even outline them here: In addition to the Filbert Steps, there's Washington Square (San Francisco), Saints Peter and Paul Church, San Francisco, the half-block of Filbert west of Leavenworth that's one of the steepest streets in SF, and the Old Vedanta Society Temple at Filbert and Webster. But again, attaching notability to Filbert Street for these features would be like saying Steiner Street is notable because it has the famous Alamo Square Victorians and the site of the old Winterland Ballroom along it. Peter G Werner (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Map all coordinates using OpenStreetMap

Download coordinates as:

Okay, echoing those and adding a few more, please see numerous landmarks along Filbert Street all in a map by clicking on "Map of all coordinates using OpenStreetMap" to the right of this page. The several landmarks along the street, whose coordinates I have just identified and labelled, are:

East end of Filbert?, where Filbert or sidewalk continuing from it arrives at The Embarcadero 37°48′09″N 122°24′03″W / 37.80246°N 122.40070°W / 37.80246; -122.40070
Filbert Steps, between Sansome St. and Montgomery St.37°48′08″N 122°24′14″W / 37.80210°N 122.40378°W / 37.80210; -122.40378
"Filbert Stairs" (or "Filbert Stairs to Coit Tower" as labelled in Google maps), btwn Montgomery & Kearny, or perhaps more specifically between Telegraph Hill Blvd and the corner of Kearny & Filbert 37°48′06″N 122°24′22″W / 37.80179°N 122.40608°W / 37.80179; -122.40608 ("Filbert Stairs to Coit Tower")
Filbert St. along Washington Square Park 37°48′05″N 122°24′37″W / 37.80128°N 122.41021°W / 37.80128; -122.41021

New School of San Francisco, formerly __?__ 37°48′04″N 122°24′54″W / 37.80098°N 122.41513°W / 37.80098; -122.41513
Block btwn Leavenworth & Hyde (one of SF's very steepest blocks, a one-way down street)37°48′01″N 122°25′06″W / 37.80027°N 122.41843°W / 37.80027; -122.41843
"Watermelon Hill", identified as a 24 hour tourist attraction, presumably a viewpoint, where SF cable car line along Hyde St. crosses Filbert St.37°48′01″N 122°25′09″W / 37.80015°N 122.41926°W / 37.80015; -122.41926
Filbert & Van Ness Ave., location of buses/cablecars/subways?/what? serving Filbert 37°47′58″N 122°25′27″W / 37.79950°N 122.42421°W / 37.79950; -122.42421 (Filbert & Van Ness Ave.)
Old Vedanta Society Temple, first Hindu Temple in America, at Filbert and Webster 37°47′53″N 122°26′03″W / 37.79810°N 122.43424°W / 37.79810; -122.43424
a point on Filbert within the Cow Hollow area 37°47′53″N 122°26′09″W / 37.79805°N 122.43573°W / 37.79805; -122.43573
Also add a point on Filbert within Russian Hill neighborhood
Also add a point on Filbert within North Beach neighborhood
Also add a point on Filbert within Telegraph Hill neighborhood
Cow Hollow Playground, inside adjacent block, i.e. behind buildings fronting onto Filbert 37°47′50″N 122°26′41″W / 37.79734°N 122.44486°W / 37.79734; -122.44486 (Cow Hollow Playground)
West end of Filbert at Golden Gate Park 37°47′48″N 122°26′50″W / 37.79660°N 122.44713°W / 37.79660; -122.44713

And please compare this info to what's covered in Lombard Street article. That article has a table indentifying the street's end points and additional major intersections, which this could have too. It mainly (only?) talks about the one block with the curvy roadway, besides mentioning the intersections. The Lombard Street article has no landmarks besides intersections along the street.

I am not the one to write interesting text about these spots, but there's more to say than can comfortably be merged into Telegraph Hill (and much simply does not apply there). And I think this is adding up to be better than the Lombard Street article. --Doncram (talk) 01:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete with the option to draftify if anyone wishes to work on it. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Industry Complex, Isfahan[edit]

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

This article was originally considered as part of the clean-up of Iranian "company towns", but removed from the list due to the additional sourcing. The issue here is that it is not clear at all whether the sources are referring to the same place. The census just refers to "Defense Industry Complex, Isfahan" as a refernce-point for counting the people around it, without it being clear what this is (part of a village? a grouping of more than one village?). On the face of it this is a WP:CORP.

The additional sources are:

neshan.org, which appears to be a wiki-like source and thus unreliable. The location it points to is an industrial complex within a location that, based on address of other companies in the area (e.g., this, this) is called "Zayanderud". This is the name of a local river and thus not a surprising name for the actual location.
A one-sentence news story on https://sahebnews.ir/ dated 24 May 2014 about the burial of "martyrs" in a place called Shahid Namjoo Industrial City. Nothing indicates that this is the same place as "Defense Industry Complex, Isfahan". Not sigcov, cannot sustain a WP:GNG pass, does not show evidence of legal recongition for a WP:GEOLAND#1 pass.
A imna.ir news story about the burial of an unknown "martyr" at "Zarin Khodro industry in Zarin Shahr, located in the Defense Industries of Lanjan region". Nothing indicates that this site is the same as the previously-mentioned sites. The real town discussed here appears to be Zarrin Shahr, a place we already have an article about, and this is just a factory complex located within it. The date of the news story is February 1396 (i.e., 2018) so it is not the same story as the one-sentence story above.

What we have here are four different sources referring to four different things (or at least nothing saying that these are the same things) none of which are clearly WP:GNG, WP:CORP, or WP:GEOLAND#1 passes. FOARP (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. FOARP (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as there are some citations to confirm its existence. We should keep it. I believe that geographic locations can be kept with minimal citations, but I am unable to find the actual policy to refer to. Lovewiki106 (talk) 02:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Citations confirming it exists are not enough to establish notability. Per WP:NBUILDING The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability. Notability is not established in this case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sirfurboy: in this case I believe Lovewiki106 is actually referring to WP:GEOLAND - it's not (just) a commercial development but would be more of an inhabited location in the company town sense. Geoland does use a much lower threshold. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  You may be right - WP:NBUILDING may not be the most appropriate as this complex is clearly sizeable, but still it would come under commercial developments (for some sense of 'commercial') which would be WP:NBUILDING. But regardless of what it is, the question is whether there is anything notable here. I found 3 mentions in sources and some web hits. As I said, these confirm existence but nothing I have found describes it in detail. Yet perhaps an article could be written about it. I have not found enough for a notable article yet, but that does not mean it is impossible. What is clear, however, is that the page asis does not seem to know what it is about. Per the nom, the 4 sources say 4 different things, and the very brief information on the page appears to be in error. If nothing else, I think this one needs WP:TNT. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a census tract, isn’t it? Covering the military industrial complex near Isfahan. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify This seems to be somewhat notable, but the article itself is in no apropriate condition as of now. Thus, it can be reworked. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think draftify is a sensible alternative to deletion too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can anyone !voting keep/draftify explain why and how this is supposed to be notable? "It Exists" is a well-known fallacy, and as explained above it is not clear that the thing described in the sources is either the same thing, or the thing discussed in the article. It is not clear how this is supposed to meet WP:GEOLAND#1 since it is not clear that this is not just a factory so simply invoking WP:GEOLAND#1 is not sufficient. There is no WP:NBUILDING or WP:NCORP pass made out here because there is no significant coverage.

As an alternative to keeping I am prepared to accept draftification, primarily because I think it will just end up with this article being deleted under WP:G13 after six months. FOARP (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am plumping down on the side of delete here. My thinking is as the title is derived from a census, it is a census tract and I do not think we regard census tracts as being notable. Certainly, there are no substantive sources about a place with this title. I'm aware that it has been said that it has an alternative name of 'Shahid Namjoo' but without good sources saying so, this is OR. If substantive sources exist for 'Shahid Namjoo' then an article can be created for 'Shahid Namjoo' (but it needs more than a news story about burials). Zarin Shahr (and the nearby steel mills) is readily found on Google maps and we have an article on it; I see no sources that connect 'Zarin Shahr' to the name 'Defense Industry Complex' or to 'Shahid Namjoo'. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Pitta[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:NSPORT. Avilich (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough news coverage. fails WP:GNG.Samanthany (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Demion Williams[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:NSPORT. Avilich (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough news coverage. fails WP:GNG.Samanthany (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jorronie McLean[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:NSPORT. Nothing on google news, only databases elsewhere. Avilich (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - played in one international match then disappeared. Can't find anything in WP:RS discussing McLean in detail Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Whittaker[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:NSPORT. Avilich (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Andre🚐 06:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Johnson (footballer, born 1990)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:NSPORT. Avilich (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Andre🚐 05:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skarlet (Mortal Kombat)[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Reception is literally all listicles and trivial coverage. Would be much better off as a section in the list of characters than split off to a separate, non-notable article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to character list and/or delete if nothing mergeable. Andre🚐 21:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Coverage is all trivial passing mentions largely of the most fringe level websites (TheGamer, CBR, Complex, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Game Informer and Venture Beat sources cited in the article give some important details on the character, as does Syfy, the former two being completely dedicated to her. The character's voice actress has also won two awards. There's quite a few listicles cited, and while they might not be enough on their own to build the article (per WP:WHYN), I would argue they are when supplementing the aforementioned sources. MoonJet (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The VentureBeat sources isn't usable. It reads This post has not been edited by the GamesBeat staff. Opinions by GamesBeat community writers do not necessarily reflect those of the staff. "Community writer" = it fails WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 11:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of removing the VentureBeat community writer-cited material from the article, as well as a couple of other definitively unreliable sources, lest they contribute to the false appearance of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I wasn't too sure about VentureBeat. Though some of the "community writers" used to work for Bitmob. As for Gamenguide, which I noticed you also removed, I've kind of been under the assumption its reliable, due to its privacy policy, and the fact its used in a number of GAs on here. A discussion of it at WP:VG/RS might be warranted.

Even if we're not counting these sources, I still stand by my keep vote. After searching for some more sources, I just found a review of her as DLC from an archived Fearnet. That's the thing about DLC characters, they tend be reviewed by a site or two.

I'm currently looking for even more sources. If I find anything good, I'll bring them in here. MoonJet (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Fearnet source barely squeaks by SIGCOV, I guess, but the site itself says nothing about an editorial staff. As a very likely to be unreliable source, I am dubious that it can be used. Even if it were reliable I still don't think it's reaching the bar for GNG but there is no evidence that it is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fearnet was a US-based media network and video on demand service owned by Comcast. My impression is that it was a professionally run outfit with editorial staff throughout its existence, as opposed to being an enthusiast site run by a group of fans. Whether the review article itself, taken together with the other cited sources, constitutes significant coverage is debatable. Haleth (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is grasping at straws without proof that the site was run with an editorial staff. I'd like to see actual proof of that rather than just vague assertions. In terms of the actual content of the review, it's pretty basic and doesn't go into much depth. All it mentions about her backstory is bookended by a nod to jokes about her blood powers and menstruation... need I say more, it reads like it was written by a teenager. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I wrote again, carefully. I said whether it counts as adequate significant coverage is debatable, because I personally found the review a little short for my liking. What I also said, that "Fearnet was a US-based media network and video on demand service owned by Comcast", as opposed to a long-running webzine that is clearly operated by enthusiasts like say this site, is also fact. I'd be more surprised if a submitted article published by a subsidiary of a major multinational corporation was never reviewed by an editor, but then again, blunders like US Today's retraction of a story about EA being acquired by Amazon do happen. Haleth (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. This is yet another example of how a character being mentioned in a video game website headline and in listicles does not necessarily mean that there is anything substantial to say about the character that couldn't be sufficiently covered within the parent article. Following summary style, we should only split to a separate article when there is an overabundance of coverage that warrants the split and would create undue weight in the parent list article. czar 16:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and rd per nom and others. Does not meet reqs for independent notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Independent notability" is not a thing. The term "independent" as defined by WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV explicitly refers to sources, that means any material produced by the article's subject or an entity affiliated with the subject do not count towards establishing the presumption of suitability for a stand-alone article about the subject. The correct question to deliberate on, is whether the aggregated coverage about the subject is adequately "significant". Another important point to consider, is whether its prose is a content fork that more or less duplicates the material contained in another article that is better established in terms of notability, because that would justify the AfD approach. Haleth (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect to seem to suggest there is wrong doing here. It's a completely valid editorial decision to say that, if something receives virtually all of its coverage in the context of a parent subject, that it doesn't need to be split out into its own article Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point here. I am not disagreeing with the suggestion that this article should be merged and redirected. Without opening a can of worms that has little bearing on the current discussion, all I am saying is, the notion of "independent notability" has no basis on guidelines or policies and makes no sense especially when any given number of related topics are never truly independent from each other in terms of discussion and scope. The primary issue to determine in most AfD cases is the alleged lack of significant coverage from independent RS, which is not a question of editorial decision, and I am not at all incorrect on that point. Haleth (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments would make complete sense towards someone arguing for a delete !vote. But not to someone arguing for a merge. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that they meant "standalone" notability, i.e. being its own page. It's the height of Wikilawyering to seize on a typo as evidence of bad faith of some kind, I think most of us know what they mean and it doesn't need multiple paragraphs refuting a nonexistent issue. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergecross73: When did I say I am arguing against a merge? I said I am ok with a merge and redirect for this article, if that isn't clear already. I simply decided to speak up over what came after, which in my opinion is a misinterpretation and misapplication of Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

@Zxcvbnm: It isn't a typo. It's not the first time someone used the terms "independent notability" or "independently notable" as if it is an established and vetted norm, much like how another prominent editor often repeated the concept of "real world notability" in deletion discussions which has no basis in any consensus. It is as misleading as some editors who parrot WP:THREE, merely an editor's personal observation, in discussions as if it is a guideline or policy that everyone is obliged follow. Pointing out a misleading statement that is not endorsed by existing guideline or policy isn't Wikilawyering because it is no different then telling an AfD nominator that they have not provided a deletion rationale or perhaps that they are using AfD as an inappropriate cleanup drive for clearly notable topics. And if you are butting into conversations that aren't actually addressed at you and insinuating that there is bad faith editing involved, then perhaps it says a lot more about you then it does me. Haleth (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine I'm alone in being surprised that you agree with Axem with your comments. I was reading this as an argument against his stance. If you agree with merging then I won't comment further. Sergecross73 msg me 23:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the position, I simply don't agree with the why. Haleth (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, uhhh, I guess this happened while I was enjoying my weekend. FWIW, I think "independent" and "standalone" basically mean the same thing semantically. If it helps, you can replace independent with standalone in your head. It's what I meant when I said it. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Standalone notability" is still...not an actual guideline or policy. We have concepts like standalone "sequels/prequels", or standalone pages I suppose. But WP:N is pretty clear. Either something is notable for inclusion and mention on Wikipedia, or not at all. Most of the time, the fundamental question is still whether a topic is entitled to its own page, or covered in various proportions as part of a page about a broader topic. Haleth (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then the guidelines do not reflect the de facto reality of how notability is applied and should be updated. The fact that you keep running into experienced editors employing the concept of "standalone notability" in AFDs so often is evidence that the concept is supported and should be enshrined in PAG somewhere. "Either something is notable for inclusion and mention on Wikipedia, or not at all." I don't think this is true. Notability is applied to articles, not individual sentences in articles. There are plenty of sourced sentences/facts in articles that are mentioned in Wikipedia that do not and should not get their own articles, despite their inclusion being perfectly reasonable within articles. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've took it upon myself to expand the article with some new sourcing, including the Fearnet source I posted above and the IGN source, as well as expanding upon the Game Informer source. Right now, we have at least three non-listicles in the reception and a couple more elsewhere. Not to mention, her voice actress winning two awards. MoonJet (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her voice actress won a minor industry award, an accolade for the voice performance, but it is not among the major annual gaming awards we take note of. It does suggest that Beata Poźniak is probably a notable or distinguished individual, but does little with establishing the presumption of a standalone Wikipedia article for the character she played. It certainly isn't Outstanding Achievement in Character, where the character itself is the subject of the accolade. Haleth (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, on their own, yeah, they don't mean much. I was just adding that for a little something extra. Either way, my main point was the sources I brought up, not her voice winning awards. I still think it would pass without the awards. MoonJet (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters - A dozen or so pieces of trivial entries in routine coverage of the MK games or listicles does not constitute significant coverage nor denote any kind of stand alone notability. The closest we have out of all of these sources of actually valid coverage is that the voice actress won a minor industry award, which as mentioned above, is not sufficient for establishing notability for the fictional character she portrayed. Rorshacma (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the DLC reviews and impressions came the closest to in depth coverage of the topic, but overall, there isn't enough significant coverage. Haleth (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. Although there are two reliable sources covering the character in detail (Game Informer and IGN) it either barely passes WP:GNG or is just an article reliably sourced to the subject indirectly or in passing mention. It's hard to decide, but merging (and/or redirecting) might be the better option here. Sparkl^talk 14:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the Fearnet and Syfy sources? Both cover her too, neither of which being listicles, and are both media networks, suggesting their reliability, like Haleth talked about above. MoonJet (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious, but where did you get that Syfy is RS, or is it just your opinion? It might be possible that Fearnet, with a WP page, could be reliable, but could you find any editorial policies (apologies if I can't find any) that indicates the reliability of these sites, instead of an assumption? VickKiang (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say, but I don't think both sources are decently reliable, at least from what I've seen. I couldn't find any credentials for both Fearnet and Syfy, and they are both nowhere to be found at WP:VG/Sources. I'm not sure if this is mentioned before or if I forgot, but the author of the Syfy article, Jenna Busch, could be this person, but again, that's just speculation. Sparkl^talk 15:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. The coverage adds up to mostly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, but there is a valid merge target. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If merge is done, please ensure MERGE IS DONE, not just a redirect. The reception section is worth preserving in its entirety somewhere. I concur it suffers from mostly passing mentions, but that doesn't mean it should be discarded. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason James (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT. Avilich (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Grenada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Pažitná[edit]

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

Non-notable ski mountaineer. Before search didn't bring up any third party sources. No medal record either. Doesn't seem to pass GNG. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 19:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail wp:GNG, apparently hasn't won medals. Nythar^T^.^C 20:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Slovakia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article appears to fail WP:GNG. I tried searching the name with and without the diacritics and other than routine stats pages, nothing came up. In the article, the first two references are literally just stats with no context and are absolutely trivial. The third reference on the article wasn't loading but I was able to get it working via archive.org and it is absolutely a trivial mention: Medzi ženami bola najrýchlejšia na trati s prevýšením 1200 m Anna Pažitná. which in Slovakian says Among the women, Anna Pažitná was the fastest on the track with an elevation of 1200 m. That's as far as it goes into detail, other than listing a completion time of 3:33 for her amongst the stats of others. - Aoidh (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Hartstein[edit]

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

Fails wp:JOURNALIST (see criteria) and wp:GNG. Nythar^T^.^C 19:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Journalism. Nythar^T^.^C 19:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Doesn't pass GNG. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 19:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Wiggins[edit]

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

Appears to fail both WP:GNG and the former and current standards of WP:NBASE. The only sources are an archive of a now-defunct blog and a dead link for his obituary, neither of which are reliable or independent of the subject. Wiggins played briefly in the dying days of the Negro league, long, long after they were anything resembling major league caliber. Couldn't find any hits for Wiggins during his playing career on newspapers.com, and any hits from post-career where brief mentions of autograph signings, reunions, and one brief interview in the Chicago Tribune where he says he didn't even get paid for playing in 1959 and 60, his only years in the Negro American League. Penale52 (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Penale52 (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Penale52 (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't the Chicago Sun-Times obituary be independent? Because it's from Chicago? St Anselm (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a copy of it, it might help, but usually obituaries have information supplied from the family, so I'm not sure how it could be completely independent of the subject. Even if it supports his brief career, his tenure happened so far removed from major league quality competition, I'm not sure it would even matter. Penale52 (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if he passes GNG, then it doesn't matter what the level is. Anyway, the text of the obituary appears to be here. St Anselm (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to. generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd consider this independent, but minor coverage. He was associated with a charity, and they have a profile of him, [2]. And whatever else is given in the article, keep I guess. I'd prefer if we kept ALL baseball articles, but we have notability guidelines. Oaktree b (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've rescued the dead Chicago Sun-Times article, the article is here. It's a real article independent of the subject, entitled, "Outfielder, passed up by Sox, made his mark in the old Negro Leagues." Based on that and the other couple of non-trivial mentions, I think this passes. Andre🚐 06:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if the obituary is independent, and it is from a reliable source, then this barely meets GNG. Rlendog (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Research Technology[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The article has two citations to the same trade magazine, but per WP:ORGIND there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. I'm not able to find significant coverage from multiple independent secondary reliable sources, meaning that this fails to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. I do not see any article into which this can be merged or redirected, so I believe that this should be deleted in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and United Kingdom. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and more specifically WP:ORG (especially when viewing the trade papers through WP:ORGIND). While their "HYD 25 testing apparatus" and "Beam-Flex" are somewhat popular in multiple asphalt-related research papers cited in Google Scholar and compilation works in Google Books, they are discussing a specific product used in testing, not the company that makes it; any mention of the company itself in these instances is trivial. Newspapers.com returned exactly 1 result, which again is a trivial mention. - Aoidh (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Champange[edit]

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

Doesn't seem like a notable Ski mountaineer. A before search doesn't bring up much either. No medal record. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 14:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and France. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. BilletsMauves^€500 15:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paola Martinale[edit]

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

Non-notable skier; no medal record, and a before search didn't bring anything up. Feels like subject shouldn't have article space SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 14:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nom. Not able to find much in Google that is useful. Zeddedm (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isfahan Railway Workers Housing[edit]

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

For the same reasons already discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agro-Industry Complex, which this is just another example of. FOARP (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. FOARP (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be worker housing on the edge of Isfahan proper. No evidence of either official recognition or significant coverage to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 16:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarfatti Building[edit]

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

WP:NBUILDING has three criteria, the second of which is relevant here: "Buildings...may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability."

The importance here is both social (being some sort of main student building, as I gather from university sources) and architectural (rationalist architecture). However, I can't find in-depth coverage from third-party sources; those given on this page and in the Italian analog of the page are either affiliated, passing, or both. Searches for 'edificio sarfatti' and 'edificio leoni bocconi' turn up no in-depth third-party coverage. It may be significant, but I can't find the requisite sources to back it up. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 21:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created the article. The building is actually featured, together with other Bocconi University buildings, in the Lombardia Beni Culturali website, which collects all the recognized and protected monuments in Lombardy region.--Plumbago Capensis (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can also find extensive coverage here [3]:).--Plumbago Capensis (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Plumbago Capensis: As for the first, I reviewed that when I nominated this for deletion, and don't consider that to be substantial coverage, but I can see an argument for notability when taken together with the whole university complex. However, this is one of many buildings in the complex. As for the second, that might be significant coverage, but that's one source, so not substantial enough. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 05:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Iseult:. I do believe that the combined sources point to a significant notability of the building. There are some which are same-party, but others include a catalog of Architectural monuments in Lombardy which itself features a very long list of references, a well-known and highly esteemed tourist guide (Touring Club) and an in-depth description article created by the Ordine degli Architetti di Milano (an official institution reuniting all architects in Milan). Plumbago Capensis (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Plumbago Capensis: I don't doubt that you believe that; after all, those were the sources in the Italian version of the article, which you created, when I nominated this for deletion. Again, this is not significant: the catalog is not a significant mention, as it mentions the building itself in passing, and the references as a rule do not seem to refer to the building itself but the university. The same is for the guide. I'll only concede the architects' thing, but then we're at one third-party source, which isn't enough per WP:NBUILDING. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 15:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being "a masterpiece" of that kind of architecture is a significant claim. It was built in 1937, and i would think it is the kind of building that, in the U.S., would be listed on the National Register of Historic Places for its architecture. In the English Wikipedia though, we don't seem to have coverage of any corresponding Italian registry (see wp:HSITES). Here is a 2010 article bemoaning lack of formal historic preservation in Italy. It seems that Italy only recently, in 2016, created laws and a government department for such ([4]), a "Ministry for Cultural Assets and Activities (MCAA)". The law sets a 50-year minimum age for listings, the same as the U.S. National Register has. Wikipedia does have an article Ministry of Culture (Italy) which suggests that a previously-existing department, at least somewhat related, was renamed to become that. But that article, when it mentions "historic monuments", links to Monument historiques, Wikipedia's page on the formal program in France. So this is a sad situation, I don't see how I can easily look up if this Sarfatti Building has been immediately registered, and it likely hasn't yet, although it seems to me that it almost certainly will be, based on what I can see about this building and what i know about many other countries' heritage registry systems. --Doncram (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Searches should try "Edificio Sarfatti", or it seems to be known also as "Edificio Sarfatti 25". The deletion-targeted page seems to be a close translation of an Italian Wikipedia article, not yet noted in this article or its (non-existent) Talk page. (However there is a small link over to the left to go to the Italian wikipedia version). But that articulolio was created earlier this month by Plumbago Capensis, and I think has only been edited by them. (Hey, Plumbago, when you translate an article from another language's Wikipedia, there are requirements for what the new page must have in its edit summaries and what it should say on its Talk page, in order to ensure proper attribution is given to the original authors in the other language. Here, IMO there is no issue, since it's just you who wrote the Italian page. I'm not up to speed on the details, but I suggest you look into this and create a Talk page for this article and put the right stuff there.). Plumbago, I am glad you are contributing, and I think/hope this AFD should not be allowed to discourage you. There are often/always AFDs opened when anything looking different comes up. If this AFD does result in the article's deletion, please let's chat; I would be very motivated to help you get set to be able to contribute along these lines. --Doncram (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, User:Plumbago Capensis, when you translate a page you must follow Help:Translation#License requirements, about the first edit summary and about a template for the Talk page. If you don't in the future, that will lead to trouble for you. (I will repeat this at the user's Talk page, where there are other warnings.) --Doncram (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if the "Lombardia Beni Culturali" is an official governmental registry listing or not. But the Lombardia Beni Culturali page mentioned, apparently this about Università Luigi Bocconi, has a LONG list of good-looking-to-me substantial sources. Plumbago, it is true that a Wikipedia article does not have to include and cite reliable sources that are independent of the topic. They merely need to exist, for an article to be justified and to survive an AFD. But using such sources upfront avoids AFD troubles. Do you have access to any of those / can you add any information or quotes sourced to any of them? --Doncram (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Regarding your first comment, Wikipedia isn't a WP:CRYSTALBALL, and we can make the article if the registry ever gets created. But not before, not based on speculation. As for your second and third, if you'd reviewed my nominating statement, you'd find that I've already been there. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 05:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Iseult. But if there's significant coverage, the article can be created, whether or not the topic is listed in any official registry. But if the topic is listed in a registry that we understand to be "good enough" in terms of ensuring there exists documentation, then we can cut short any AFD discussion and educate AFD editors to avoid similar nominations. Like for a Level I or a Level IIa Listed building in England, or for an individually listed NRHP-listed building in the US (but there are lower levels in those registers where having an article is usually not justified). Currently I/we don't know about Italian heritage registries; I'd like to help fix that. --Doncram (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: First, I'm a bit confused, because two 'but' sentences that adjoin each other are usually used to complement each other; however, your points there seem to contradict each other. In any case, regarding the first, as I've tried to establish in my nominating statement and in my other replies, I have found no significant third-party coverage of the building. Regarding the second, per WP:NBUILDING, this registry has to be of the national level. If you don't know of any, then we're done here, and it's a delete. I personally don't know of any either. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 08:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I spent a while trying to find the "masterpiece" claim in this source and as far as I can tell it is the sentence L'edificio è una delle più raffinate opere del razionalismo italiano... which Google Translate calls "finest works" rather than "masterpiece" but I think it's fair to say that's close enough, considering that I do not speak Italian and am not about to argue the nuance of the language when I'm basing it off of machine translation; I will take the author at their word that masterpiece is a proper translation there. The source itself I linked also itself refers to other sources, so I think it's fair to say there is "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources" required by WP:NBUILDING. Unfortunately in the English language I wasn't able to find any third-party sources that discuss the building, so I have to rely on the Italian sources which again, I do not speak Italian. However, there does appear to be coverage and the building does appear to be historically significant, so I think there's enough notability there to keep the article. - Aoidh (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with the above source analysis, seems good. Oaktree b (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per Todesco, Fabio (December 12, 2016). "When Architecture Tells the Story of a University, an Era and a City". Via Sarfatti 25. Retrieved August 25, 2022. Seventy-five years ago, on December 21, 1941, the Bocconi building in via Sarfatti 25 was inaugurated. It had been designed by Giuseppe Pagano...The building has left an imprint not only in the history of the University, but also in Italian architecture and in the development of Milan. In the difficult years between the '30s and '40s, with Italy ready to go to war and the Fascist regime influencing intellectual life, the construction of the building was so tormented, that Pagano himself defined it "a drama in three acts".

That's literally an affiliated source? It's from the university, and the address of the building is Via Sarfatti 25? Iseult^Δxparlez moi 08:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that is not entirely an affiliated source, as it is from a university magazine.--Plumbago Capensis (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the university magazine is also called Via Sarfatti 25 (the address of the building): "THE BOCCONI BUILDING IN VIA SARFATTI TURNS 75 AND IS CELEBRATED BY A CONFERENCE AND A BOOK ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY OF THAT TIME, THE COMPLEX RELATIONSHIP WITH GIOVANNI GENTILE AND THE ARCHITECT GIUSEPPE PAGANO, FASCIST, ANTIFASCIST AND MARTYR, WHO DIED SHORTLY THEREAFTER IN MAUTHAUSEN." Djflem (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per "Dagli anni Quaranta a oggi: la sede storica e il campus dell'università Bocconi". La Repubblica. 23 August 2019. Retrieved 27 August 2022. appears to also be known also as "La Bocconi". Djflem (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per source analysis and those in article. Djflem (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a heritage-listed building, so meets WP:GEOFEAT. While Italy as a whole is not great at listing such things, Lombardy is much better, and as far as I know, Lombardia Beni Culturali is an official listing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parsa Sanat Khorasan Jonoubi[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. I didn't search Farsi-language sources but I don't see enough in English. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Iran. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't even think it's worth a redirect. Giant Snowman 09:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CONTROL (Professional Wrestling)[edit]

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

No sources, no indication of notability. No verification that this "stable" name is actually used. It's not mentioned in the ELs for the three members. MB 19:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. MB 19:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and to be honest this could have been a PROD. — Czello 19:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. The article is just a personal commentary. --Mann Mann (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV, no reason to keep. Jacona (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable lacking coverage or even sources. Also invokes POV. It is commentary, not even an article. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 17:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to NorthEast United FC. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NorthEast United FC B[edit]

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

Effectively a recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NorthEast United FC Reserves and Academy. User has repeatedly tried to recreate, and now has created a second page. Should be redirected to NorthEast United FC as before. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and India. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Assam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NorthEast United FC unless someone can present independent sources that indicate that the subject warrants its own article. Fats40boy11 (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NorthEast United FC and protect the redirect, so it cannot be re-created without consensus to do so. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect as above. Giant Snowman 09:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nom, then protect the redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect as above. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NorthEast United FC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Cox (aviation expert)[edit]

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

Can't find good enough coverage for WP:NBIO. There's a USA Today interview, cited in the article, but that's of course not independent at all. On newspapers.com I only found passing mentions and brief quotations from him cited as an aviation guy. Ovinus (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Ovinus (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the subject may be frequently consulted for aviation-related media, this doesn't make him notable. My own search didn't turn up anything that could be used to augment this article. A loose necktie (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm surprised that the creation of this page was even controversial. How is John Cox any less notable than, say, Greg Feith? In fact, one can argue that Cox is even more notable and decorated than Feith. I think this should be assessed by people who are more in tune with the aviation industry than Wikipedians who are less familiar with Cox's omnipresence within aviation-related media. Electricmaster (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at Feith's article to compare, and I'll respond. In its current state, Feith's article is in sorry shape. I could go and slap a fair number of citation needed tags on there. But looking at the list of awards, and putting things in the best, most optimistic light, I would expect to find some coverage in Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine for his Laurel Award, even though it's not currently cited. Same goes for the Embry-Riddle Distinguished Alumni Award, even though it's not cited. Looking at Cox, none of the awards are cited either, but none of them seem to be especially likely to have been widely reported in anything other than press releases. (I think "distinguished alumni award" trumps "outstanding MBA graduate" in significance). Finding non-PR coverage of at least a couple of them might tip the arguments towards keep. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When Ive got time I’ll try to tidy up the Feith article with sources. Ovinus (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like it or not, we're not a phone catalogue for "experts". Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i understand that what i wrote above might be slightly derogatory, and i apologise for that. However, i still think that this person is just not notable enough, and stand by my original vote. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Show me a couple of reliable sources with in-depth coverage about him, not just mentioning or quoting him, and I'll happily change my argument. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of any significant notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Korbová[edit]

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

Non-notable ski mountaineer. WP:BEFORE search doesn't bring up third party sources to establish notability. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 18:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Czech Republic. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at nonnotable. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 17:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

André Jonsson[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. Before search didn't bring up any third party results to establish notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 18:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion as whether this should have been listed at RFD or AFD is interesting and perhaps can continue elsewhere. However, as it is here and I see a consensus for deletion, delete it is. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confederation of Autia[edit]

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

This is a micronation in one of the pockets of alleged terra nullis on the Croatia-Serbia border. Croatia–Serbia border dispute#Liberland mentions a notable and three non-notable micronations claiming one or more pockets of land. The mentioned micronations are, on a brief check, verifiable as claimed micronations in reliable sources but I cannot find a single mention in reliable sources of this micronation, let alone in-depth coverage. A day after creation in 2017, Pichpich redirected this to the border dispute article, but as it is not mentioned there I don't think the redirect is useful. As the content has never been discussed and is not speedy deletable, RfD would rightly conclude to revert and send it to AfD for discussion so I've just done that. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Princedom of Ongal where redirects related to other micronations here have been nominated for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find no significant coverage of the Confederation of Autia. Pichpich (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pichpich: Do you recall why you redirected it? I can't even find anything to sustain a mention at the target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  It was five years ago and I was probably doing some new page patrolling. I don't remember my motivation for redirecting. Pichpich (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Croatia, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum. The status quo is a redirect, so this needs to be discussed as a redirect at RfD. When someone redirects article content and then immediately nominates the redirect at RfD, consensus is that the article should be restored and taken to AfD because the nominator is gaming the system by trying to delete an article as a redirect. This is no different. This was never established as an article and unreferenced garbage like this should never be restored. Furthermore, the nominator's claim that only "speedy deleteable" content should be deleted at RfD does not enjoy consensus. This was discussed at length here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I see little point in restoring an unsourced article created over 5 years ago which was an article for less than a day. If it seems controversial, someone actually thinks it needs to be discussed at AFD or specifically asks then yes but otherwise I don't see a problem with deleting articles that were short lived years ago where no one objected to redirecting in the sense of they thought it should remain a full article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe and (barring occasional exceptions) consensus strongly agrees, that articles that are not speedy deletable should be discussed at AfD before being deleted and that the correct response to a BLAR that results in a bad redirect is to revert the redirect and discuss the article at an appropriate forum. AfD is an appropriate forum to discuss the deletion of an article. So yes, someone (i.e. me) does think this needs to be discussed at AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The central question (and the whole reason you want the redirect deleted) is ...as it is not mentioned there I don't think the redirect is useful and that is a question for RfD, not AfD. Many RfD discussions hinge on the mentionworthiness of a topic and is something that RfD editors are experienced to handle. No rational editor will want to keep the rubbish you have restored, so trying to backdoor-delete the redirect through AfD would naturally have a higher likelihood of getting your desired result. This is gaming the system and should not be tolerated. I also find it—interesting—that you have alluded to a consensus multiple times now without showing evidence of it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see evidence that consensus generally strongly agrees though I don't participate at RFD much, there was discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 31#Little Welnetham Priory and User talk:Thryduulf#Redirected pages at RFD. At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 27#Wikipedia:Cthulhu Mythos reference codes and bibliography Tavix suggested restoring but that probably had more history. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to find all the links right now to demonstrate the consensus (I'll add them when I do), but restoring and sending to AfD is very common following a BLAR nominated at RfD. My main concern here is not that it is completely unverifiable in reliable sources - indeed only in unreliable sources was I even able to verify its existence (to the extent that micronations can be said to actually exist). My justification for coming to AfD is, exactly as I've explained, to get the process right not so that I am more likely to get the result I want (the result I want is either consensus that this is a verifiable (and ideally verified) thing notable enough for either an article or to be merged somewhere or consensus that it should be deleted). Merge and redirect are both appropriate outcomes of an AfD, but deleting article content is not an appropriate outcome of an RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, restoring and sending to AfD is common following a BLAR nominated at RfD, but this is not a WP:BLAR situation. The key element, which is missing here, is that there is a disagreement on whether there should be an article or a redirect at that title. There is no one advocating for this article, thus no disagreement. After my review of this topic, I only see two possible outcomes: someone finds a source good enough to add to Croatia–Serbia border dispute and the redirect is kept, or no such sourcing turns up and the page is deleted. That is an RfD issue, and a common one at that. Deleting appropriate article content is not an appropriate outcome of an RfD, but this is not appropriate article content, even by your own admission in the nomination. Restoring this content was a violation of WP:BURDEN so proper process, even when setting aside the status quo, was not followed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether content is appropriate for the encyclopaedia or not requires consensus at a venue suitable for discussing article content, RfD is not such a venue so it would need to come to AfD anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RfD is absolutely the correct venue for discussing any page whose status quo is a redirect, no matter its history. RfD editors are more than competent to make a determination on whether or not article content is appropriate and act accordingly. To that end, I have never seen appropriate article content deleted at RfD, it has always been junk like this. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, RfD is the appropriate venue only for discussing:
The correct target of any redirect

The existence of redirects without history as something other than a redirect

The existence of redirects with history as something other than a redirect when:
That content would be speedily deletable if restored, or

That content has previously been subject to a consensus discussion an appropriate venue.

This has always been the case throughout the more than 18 years I've been on Wikipedia, baring a circa single digit number of exceptions article content that does not meet one or both the requirements is simply not deleted at RfD because it is not AfD (RfD and AfD are separate for a reason). This is despite how much you have argued for the contrary over the years. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. This is one of them. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. what we are discussing here is content that was submitted as an article and is currently an article. The article content was boldly redirected, I objected to that redirect and so reverted it and have started a discussion about it in an appropriate venue. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are five years too late making that argument, the status quo is not an article. In the intervening time it had become established as a redirect. On the other hand, it was never established as an article. Because you also object to the article content (as evidenced by starting this discussion), restoring it was not appropriate. You are more than welcome to object to the blanking-and-redirecting of an article, but that objection needs to be because there is acceptable article content under the redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I like micronations, but unfortunately, only a handfull few of'em are notable. This one is not one of them, and the state of the article requires a speedy. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G3. This was a creation by a "vandalism-only account", but I would lean more towards the "blatant hoax" side. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a hoax. There is enough information in unreliable sources to be sure that this is an accurate reflection of a real but non-notable thing. A11 is closer than G3, but I'm not convinced it definitely meets the requirements of that criterion (specifically the close connection between article creator and article subject). I did carefully check whether this met any speedy deletion criterion but while it's close it doesn't quite match any of them and CSD explicitly only applies in the most obvious of cases, which means that where there is doubt it does not apply. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posting that something exists on a wiki does not make it exist. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When the subject of the article is a claim that something exists (which is what a micronation is), evidence that people have claimed that that thing exists is sufficient evidence to show that the article is not a hoax for the purpose of speedy deletion. Whether or not it shows anything else is irrelevant for the purposes of G3. Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any mention of this outside wikies. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coit Cleaners[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As far as I can tell there really is no notability here--the company exists, this is true, but seems to not be anything special, and any notability seems derived from a lawsuit filed in 1993 and settled in 2003. I don't think they meet NCORP.

Update: I just noticed this is the second nomination--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coit Cleaners (really a third--deep dive into Wikipedia history!). But our standards for discussing deletion have changed a bit, and we should now require evidence of notability rather than just claims of notability, which is what we find in those two discussions from 2005. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OPs right, stuff DID change from 2005, specifically the notability guidelines regarding companies. Now all wikipedians need to do to make sure the article on their favorite establishment is kept is have at least ONE non-local reliable source. And would ya look at that! None other than Bob Vila's website ranked it in their top 3 couch cleaning services. There, all you need now is a couple of more reliable sources, local included (Like this one about their operations in Kentucky) and you're good to go! Now I'm wondering if OP did any sort of WP:BEFORE...Americanfreedom (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahem. Bob Vila is a TV host. His website is not a reliable secondary source. I've never been very impressed with Bizjournals.com, but OK, there's an article then. Anyway, the idea that one hit on a TV host's website and an article in a business journal is enough is kind of silly. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have fond memories of watching Bob Vila, but his website is questionable in terms of establishing notability. For one thing, Mr. Vila certainly did not write that article, a freelance writer did. Second, the BobVila.com website earns a commission on the listed cleaners, so there is a conflict of interest there, as defined by WP:IIS: "Independent sources have...no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)" It's not an independent reliable source. While this BizJournal article does go into some detail about COIT, what's there is honestly trivial because to be clear, the article is about "COIT Kentuckiana franchisee Krish Inc." not about COIT itself. Americanfreedom's comment about only needing one source is inaccurate, as WP:GNG requires multiple reliable third-party sources, and even if you were to include BizJournal piece (which we shouldn't, as parent notability should be established independently), that's still just one article, and that's not sufficient for an article on Wikipedia. With that in mind, and with what I was able to find online, there are no reliable third-party sources that have significant coverage of the article's subject; it fails WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources aren't really useful. Bob Vila is 75 or so, I really don't think he's active on his website and rating companies; likely people running it and paying to use his name. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per abouve. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with all arguments for deletion. It comes down to not having enough citations. Samanthany (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per author request (WP:CSD#G7) on the page. Mifter (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Doan-Nguyen[edit]

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

Unable to locate WP:THREE in the article. Fails GNG DavidEfraim (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Vietnam. DavidEfraim (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A heavily promotional BLP that fails the GNG going away, even after removing a fair bit of uncited puffery. The subject's only mentions in the sources provided are casual namedrops, or quotes from the subject (which explicitly cannot support the notability of the subject). The article creator is a SPA for whom creating this article, and promoting the subject in others, is the sole Wikipedia activity. Ravenswing 22:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Aside from this which is a local piece, everything that mentions him is a trivial mention, and articles require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Notability's just not there. That local piece does say "Doan Nguyen made headlines around the state earlier this year..." which made me think there would be something out there in terms of reliable sources, but aside from an interview everything I could find was either related to the press release found in the article, or mentioned him in passing. - Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Galeanonym, the author of the page, has blanked it and put up a G7 template. Ravenswing 17:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doesnt this mean this can be speedy-ed? Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Siddarth[edit]

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

The citations have no association with the subject at all. Fails notability DavidEfraim (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. DavidEfraim (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete they do but they’re only passing mentions and don’t demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar Klack[edit]

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

References are passing mentions. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Possibly single event news, whats there anyway. scope_creep^Talk 13:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possibly TOOSOON? Some media coverage that could imply meeting criteria 7 of WP:Notability(academics) but he might be well producing those in his function as a journalist not as an academic. The article would need more evidence of notability - either general, or as an academic or author. JamesKH76 (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added two references as evidence of notability, this might meet criteria 7 of WP:Notability(academics): substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Andreas Tuffé (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You added a youtube video which has 168views and is likly non-rs because of that and a 40 documentatry short where he presents is not evidence of an academic. The real problem there is no mainstream evidence. Its all patched together. It should be immediately visible by a 2 minute search. scope_creep^Talk 06:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anybody else anything to say about this. scope_creep^Talk 06:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable academic. Coverage is minor. Andre🚐 06:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of semiaquatic tetrapods[edit]

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

This is just an incomprehensible list with very unclear inclusion criteria. As noted at Talk:List_of_semiaquatic_tetrapods#Better,_referenced_criteria_for_"Semiaquatic", what counts as "semi-aquatic"? Are seals and penguins semi-aquatic because they occasionally come onto land, are elephants and humans semi-aquatic because they sometimes swim? As far as I can tell, there are no sources that discuss semiaquatic taxa in a list like this, and therefore this fails WP:LISTN. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Science. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most definitely wp:or. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unclear how being able to swim e.g. humans and Crab-eating macaques makes something semiaquatic. Perhaps examples on Semiaquatic could be lengthened, but this list is far too vague. Reywas92^Talk 16:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE by being a list that isn't necessarily about an encyclopedic intersection, i.e. "List of runners with brown hair" or "List of old ladies with green cars". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE, the classification of "semiaquatic" does not designate any meaningful group. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 00:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Article was G4'd.. (non-admin closure) Alyo (chat·edits) 19:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Vivek Bindra[edit]

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

This page has previously deleted multiple times 1st nomination, 2nd nomination. I found no significant coverage and does not pass WP:GNG. BBSTOP (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and India. BBSTOP (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, G4, if an admin can verify it's close enough for WP:G4, otherwise, this should be deleted anyways. No evidence of notability, one of the sources used is deprecated, and the addition of "Dr" is because the page Vivek Bindra (check the deletion log there...) is salted. ASUKITE 14:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And now so is this one! Deb (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Pro[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article without any encyclopedic value. Fails GNG DavidEfraim (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Africa. DavidEfraim (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete searched for "DJ Pro" + "Ramadhani Ciza" but found nothing of use. Fails MUSICBIO/GNG.-KH-1 (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talan Products[edit]

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

I am not convinced that this company meets WP:NCORP. Coverage appears to be typical PR output, mostly in a local weekly newspaper. The awards do not appear to be significant, and being 3,441 in a list, or 258th in a list, or number 45 in a list of 50 doesn't make a company worthy of an article in an encyclopedia. This seems to be a run-of-the-mill company going about its business. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ohio. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete routine and unsufficient media to prove the subject's notability. --多少战场龙 (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Population of Bashkortostan[edit]

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

This unreferenced non-article has been sitting as an orphan since its creation in 2014. Bashkortostan has a demographics section that is working fine. This page fails notability and sourcing requirements. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The content of the article isn't even worth merging to the parent article, and the demographics section of Bashkortostan is not so expansive that it needs its own article, nor does the size of the parent article warrant a split. I say delete over redirect because it doesn't seem to be a viable search term for the parent article. - Aoidh (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cool idea, but not how wikipedia is constructed. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A VerySpatial Podcast[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The Directions Magazine source is an WP:INTERVIEW. The ESRI award is not a major award as far as I can tell (it doesn't have it's own Wikipedia article) and the podcast's parent company won the award, not the podcast. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Geography, and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While it has won an award from Esri, there's no article for the award, so that doesn't meet WP:WEBCRIT #2 as it doesn't otherwise appear to be a "well-known" award, and the article fails WP:GNG outright. One interview and one niche industry award do not create notability for the article's subject. Considering how long the podcast has been running, an impressive 16 years, you'd think there would be coverage in all that time, but there's nothing that can be found to support notability for the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oakbank Primary School[edit]

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

Unusual one this. This was set as a redirect back in 2012 as non-notable, which is certainly appears to be. Obviously A7 doesn't apply to schools else it could have gone then.

The redirect was then raised as a speedy this week, which I had to decline as it's clearly not a recent redirect. I've rolled back to the article's substantial content so that a discussion can be had here on notability. A quick search by me couldn't find anything about this school outside of directory listing and the like. Ged UK 11:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable and unreferenced (which isn't a surprise, given the lack of information online about it). Seasider53 (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable and unreferenced. Just as it was in 2012. This is a wholly unremarkable primary school. John (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently non-notable. Insufficient referencing to establish notability. Coldupnorth (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Primary schools are rarely notable enough to merit an article of their own, and I do not see any evidence that this case is an exception at the moment. Dunarc (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Woody Woodpecker filmography. ✗plicit 11:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well Oiled (film)[edit]

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

Most of Woody Woodpecker shorts have been integrated in Woody Woodpecker filmography; a few still remain. Some correctly so, as they are notable, but this one does not appear to be so. All we have is a stubby plot summary and infobox catalogue-like data. The ref to "The Encyclopedia of Animated Cartoons" is misleading, so no, it's not "two page of coverage", it's two pages in it that have WP:SIGCOV-failing passing mentions (and incorrectly so, this short is mentioned on p. 148 and 153, at lest in my edition). Anyway, the short is never discussed, it's just listed in the two separate lists of WW's shorts. Given that, I suggest redirecting this to Woody Woodpecker filmography. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Woody Woodpecker filmography. Ref 1 is online, but clearly a non-reliable SPS blog. I'm unsure on how long the coverages of the printed refs are, but considering that ref 2 only supports one sentence (assering the film is the 24th animated cartoon short subject in the Woody Woodpecker series), and ref 3 another two sentences, with a link that can't be opened, I'm inclined to agree with Piotrus that the book doesn't cover this film for two pages. So, with none of the refs being reliable, independent, and significant, neither WP:GNG nor any WP:NFILM criteria are met. VickKiang (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang FYI, the book can be accessed through Z-library, if you feel like verifying my claims. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Judge Dredd#Major storylines. ✗plicit 11:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tour of Duty (Judge Dredd story)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability 2 years ago, still no reception section, just a plot summary and publication history. That said, while some Dredd story arcs have ended up as redirects to Judge_Dredd#Major_storylines, others made it through AfDs in the past, so let's discuss. Can we find sources to rescue this, or should it be redirected? My BEFORE isn't showing much. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to whichever article is apropriate; unfortunately, this particular part doesn't seem do be eligible for an article on its own. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: more to review at Template:Judge Dredd... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Judge Dredd#Major storylines as suggested by the nomination. I was unable to find any kind of real coverage or reviews in reliable sources, just in a few fan sites and blogs. The suggested target probably needs to have a good cleanup itself (its completely unsourced, with nothing actually supporting which listed stores are in fact, "major" storylines"), but that's a different issue and for now, would be the best target for the nominated article. Rorshacma (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Star Mississippi 02:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Witt (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Not a suitable dab page, one item is clearly the primary topic while there is only one other entry. This situation should be handled with hatnotes per WP:ONEOTHER (t · c) buidhe 07:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 07:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Buidhe. However, I propose that we BLAR this page to Robert Witt, as the page had been a redirect to that title from its creation until my dabification. Thanks. NotReallySoroka (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, both of these people are or were players in Major League Baseball, that seems reasonably close enough in importance for a disambiguation page. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between France and Japan[edit]

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

Similarly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of rugby union matches between Canada and Japan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of rugby union matches between Japan and the United States this article fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NRIVALRY and more importantly WP:GNG. There's been a number of articles like this which have been deleted in the past, as there has been no GNG coverage of the rivalry itself, and this is another of those articles. Please note that an article of similar content was deleted by PROD at the same time as the other previous articles. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby union, Japan, and France. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nom's rationale is sound; I don't see how the article can go beyond stats and meet the GNG. "rugby matches between France and Japan" has zero Ghits and zero TWL hits. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 09:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:NOT. There are no sources to support a history or rivalry here; this is just an indiscriminate list of matches and statistics. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the individual matches are notable, so why would they be notable collectively. Chagropango (talk) 10:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Those matches are't notable. Fad Ariff (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just statistics. Fulmard (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No rivalry supported by sources. As with the other articles noted above, fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NRIVALRY. --Bcp67 (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Fats40boy11 (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2020s in fashion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal Grandmother[edit]

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

Tiktok trend unworthy of an article. IF this content is worth keeping, I suggest moving to be a section within a more relevant page, like 2020s in fashion or something of that nature. If this becomes a larger known thing and continues beyond a fad of summer 2022, then articledom can be re-discussed, but at this point, it's only worth a section within an article, if that. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2020s in fashion, per nom. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 02:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable fashion trend. Andre🚐 03:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2020s in fashion, notable enough to be added to that article but I don't think it's currently notable enough for a separate article. Suonii180 (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a stub article, but based upon the sourcing, there is more than enough to demonstrate that there is enough material to make a standalone article. This article looks like the Indie sleaze article before it was recently expanded. Thriley (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Coverage suggests that WP:GNG is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to 2020s fashion as described. Oaktree b (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can people arguing sources please discuss the sources and how they meet the gng pleAse?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2020s in fashion. Even if it is notable, there is not enough information from reliable sources to draft an encyclopedic article on it. Chagropango (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge On second thoughts, this stub article would be better incorporated within the parent article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW Keep. This article has had a rather tumultuous history. Its first AfD was closed as redirect and a later deletion review (with an intervening edit war (and full protection) between restoring and expanding the article and redirecting it based on the prior AfD) endorsed the outcome and sent the article back here. Ordinarily, that would counsel letting the AfD run its full course. However, it appears that the consensus has changed in a somewhat dramatic manner (while not dispositive, I note that a number of participants from the prior AfD have also participated here and argued in favor of keeping the article) given a large amount of recent news coverage in reliable sources of the article's subject such that this AfD is clearly going to be closed as keep as the subject now passes our general notability guideline. Mifter (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Hageman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harriet Hageman and the subsequent Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 August 17, the community is asked to determine whether this U.S. politician is now considered notable enough, per WP:GNG, for her own article. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 06:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Sandstein 06:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If she was not notable before, she certainly is after beating Liz Cheney in the primary. She has major features on her in NYT, NPR, etc. as of last week. Chagropango (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the WP:GNG. Eg

1. https://pcrecordtimes.com/article/hageman-looking-to-serve-wyoming-people A serious introductory article from 2018

2. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/16/us/politics/harriet-hageman-trump-cheney.html Deep coverage from a leading national newspaper.

3. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/17/who-is-harriet-hageman-liz-cheney-wyoming-trump Deep coverage from an international publication.

The GNG-meeting coverage of Hageman trumps WP:NPOL, as is even explicitly written at NPOL. - SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Keep Seeing that she's about to be a sitting member of congress might as well keep. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 11:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the last AfD there has been more significant independant coverage to warrant meeting WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG, even as an unelected candidate. Novemberjazz 14:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes GNG in light of major features in multiple publications. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 19:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A case of recentism as a postive. Significant reliably sourced coverage of her campaign in national media outlets far exceeds the routine coverage that unelected candidates typically accrue, making a credible case for passing WP:NPOL criterion #2. Sal2100 (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG, especially due to the nature of the political win and the amount of coverage in reliable sources (even though it's not something that meets WP:NPOL). - Aoidh (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Totally obvious keep, anybody who has gotten to the point of running for political office is notable enough for a Wikipedia page. Joe (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:JoePhin, this will be a “keep”, but your rationale is false. Many candidates fail WP:N and WP:NPOL. — SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eh. You may be right. I should say that most people who've gotten to the point of running for political office will be notable enough for a Wikipedia page, and this is an obvious case of that. Joe (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep per all above. A lot has changed in the last two months since the last AFD as evidenced by comments in the DRV and this discussion. Very clear pass of GNG and NPOL now. Carson Wentz (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

East Ridge (Wolf's Head)[edit]

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

In compliance with WP:N, this article does not meet requirements for notability. The subject of this article is not discussed outside of guidebooks or trip reports and has (as best I can tell) never been mentioned in any mainstream news ¡Ayvind! (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Geography, and Wyoming. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see why good guidebooks or climbing books should be considered less worthy than "mainstream news." News outlets are not the only reliable sources. That said I would want to see *significant* mentions in more than one such source, by different authors, to consider a climbing route notable. Not sure yet if this route meets that standard. A secondary note that this seems to be one of a number of very short articles sourced primarily to Fifty Classic Climbs of North America (see East Buttress (Middle Cathedral), Northeast Face (Pingora), and many others at Category:Climbing routes), so whatever happens here may have relevance for them as well. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Relevant material already covered at Wolfs Head. —Ganesha811 - Certainly climbing routes can potentially be notable as WP:GNG passes, and two reliable, independent sources could be enough to substantiate that, even if they are specialist climber press/books, but in this case, even if that were the case, we already have an article on the Wolf's Head that is not very long and the relevant subject matter is already there, so why do we need a separate article on it? FOARP (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, as it is I don't see any reason to keep the climbing route articles split from the articles on the peaks/mountains except in very rare cases (like some Everest routes). —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Robin Hobb bibliography#The Realm of the Elderlings. There is strong argument in favor of merging this into an article about the fictional setting; consensus here would support retargetting if and when such an article is created. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in the Realm of the Elderlings[edit]

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

A totally unreferenced list that fails WP:NLIST (and as an article, obviously fails WP:GNG), the main article for the series (world? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Realm of the Elderlings) was deleted over 10 years ago (and those were the times WP:FANCRUFT was not challenged as much as today...). We do have articles for subseries (The Farseer Trilogy and latter four more series: Liveship Traders Trilogy, The Tawny Man Trilogy, while The Rain Wild Chronicles and Fitz and the Fool Trilogy are just redirects). Frankly, the best option might be to (re)create the entry for the metaseries (The Realm of the Elderlings), IF it can be shown to be encyclopedic. Another might be to add some content about characters to the articles on individual series, for some reason The Farseer Trilogy is GA while simultaneously missing a section about characters (an oversight in other articles, perhaps related to the existence of the list currently discussed here; ping editors who worked on said recent GA: User:David Fuchs, User:Olivaw-Daneel). PS. Full disclaimer: I recently redirected unreferenced Places in the Realm of the Elderlings to the The Realm of the Elderlings, where I then restored a redirect too. I'll also ping User:Pburka and User:Kvng who may be interested in this topic but I am not sure if they watchlist this article of delsort lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I don't think there's enough sourcing to support Characters in the Realm of the Elderlings and would redirect it (possibly to Robin Hobb bibliography § The Realm of the Elderlings). Other comments: GAs do not require a character list. See MOS:CHARACTERS: "Most articles do not need this section. Instead, a finely crafted plot summary is used to introduce the characters to the reader." I doubt if The Farseer Trilogy would benefit from such a section, as it has just one primary character. On the other hand the Liveship Traders has 7–8 POVs, so I can see how a character glossary would help there. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC) (updated 07:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC))[reply]
@Olivaw-Daneel We are a bit off topic here, but I'd suggest adding a note to Farseer that there is just one major character somewhere. Frankly, even a short section on characters saying so, with some analysis of the main character, would be good there (if sources exist). If I was a GA reviwer I'd likely make such a request. Just saying. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Keep. I support @Piotrus's proposed option to "(re)create the entry for the metaseries (The Realm of the Elderlings)," possibly even as a stub, and merging this article into it. However, if that does not happen, I would support keeping this article, despite the numerous flaws that are accurately described above. See meta:Inclusionism#Arguments against deletion. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The current article fails both GNG and LISTN. It can maybe be salvaged to merge, but that can be decided at a late time. TTN (talk) 13:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No sources make any merge difficult per WP:V... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep somehow, if only for the sake of us who have read the entire pile of books . - DVdm (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are definitely sources out there to write more about the Realm of the Elderlings, and I'd support restoring that article to at least list the dozen or so books and stories that make up the series. I was surprised to find academic sources such as "Bringing Dragons Back Into the World: Dismantling the Anthropocene in Robin Hobb's Realm of the Elderlings", "PATRIARCHY UNDER SCRUTINY Tracing Feminist Discourse in Hobb’s The Realm of the Elderlings", "Lire l'illisibilité identitaire:(en) jeux du détournement du genre dans The Realm of the Elderlings de Robin Hobb" and "Premik od tradicionalne ženske vloge v likih Robin Hobb v The Farseer trilogiji in The Tawny Man trilogiji". pburka (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Realm of the Elderlings is feasible to write, although some of the sources you list are Masters theses and aren't suitable. I went through this search a year ago and have compiled the usable ones at Robin Hobb § Sources. (I meant to write it at some point, but I had to take a break after expanding the trilogy pages. If anyone wants to, they're welcome to do so.) Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Olivaw-Daneel The question of whether Masters sources are usable or not is interesting, but probably off topic. IMHO they are reliable (since they've been reviwed by the committee) but not necessarily sufficient for estabilishing notability of the topic, if other sources do not exist. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going off of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, which is very explicit: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Masters' theses are a bit like Wikipedia: Not necessarily sufficient or reliable, but often a great place to find references to other, better scholarship. Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Delete, Keep, Merge, Redirect, the only thing clear here is that there is no consensus thus far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ALLPLOT - this information is more fit for FANDOM but would violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE in its current state. There is pretty much nothing salvageable here, as it is entirely WP:OR. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per Zxcvbnm. Fails the WP:GNG, WP:ALLPLOT, WP:OR, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. To resolve all these issues this article would need WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources with coverage about its reception and impact. None is included as none appears to exist. Jontesta (talk) 13:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Robin Hobb bibliography#The Realm of the Elderlings. The article fails WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:ALLPLOT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE per Piotrus and Zxcvbnm. Articles on the general topic of Realm of the Elderlings is plausible, as the master sources are interesting at least (not sure if they're notable) but this list, which is WP:FANCRAFT, WP:OR and meets WP:TNT isn't worth even merging, IMHO, although I'd be fine with a redirect. VickKiang (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Murray River. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS Etona[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Lack in-depth coverage in RS. There is nothing remarkable stated in the article that would suggest notability and the sources are all minor mentions. MB 01:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. MB 01:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is significant coverage in the book Murray Darling Paddleboats, which is cited in the article. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We typically require at least two independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage. I'm only seeing/finding one available at this time. If not retained, consider merging to Murray River § River transport as per WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (or merge) -- The article has three newspaper sources, which may well be the sources for the book (I do not know). However, I would like to hear more of the vessel's history: was its grounding fatal to it? Unlikely. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The three newspapers sources are trivial happenings, not in-depth coverage:
- "The Bishop, Right Rev. Dr. Harmer, arrived here on Saturday in the mission launch Etona, and on Sunday he held services in the Mission Hall, being assisted by the Rev. H. H. Wylie (the Incumbent) and the Rev. Mr. Bussell" - minor mention
- "owing to the steamer Etona grounding on a sandbank, and remaining there for six or seven hours." - minor mention
- "During the year the boiler of the launch Etona gave way entirely, and has been replaced by a new one at a cost of £87" (with a little more talk of the funding).
The article even incorrectly states that "services on board" - the newspaper says in "Mission Hall" which I do not believe would be a room on the ship. MB 17:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider option of Merging article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per North America as ATD. I looked at this at NPP and couldn’t see how it was notable. Mccapra (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per North America. I suspect there are more sources (offline) available for this, but merging will protect the existing content rather than outright deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Todd M. Insler[edit]

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

Airline union/labor functionary. Only RS are passing mentions in The Independent and Bizjournals. Other available sources are primary, unreliable (Forbes contributor posts), or otherwise doesn't contribute to notability (Bloomberg standard profile page). Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 02:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Aviation. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This wikipedia entry was created to promote Insler in his campaign for Airline Pilots Association (ALPA) President. It is pretty obvious he doesn't warrant a wikipedia page. I would not oppose deletion of the entire entry. Norco3921 (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He is actually an important figure in the labor movement and responsible for thousands of jobs beings saved. That being said, the page is constantly vandalized and should be deleted. Greydog1! (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His is only important in the labor movement in that he has betrayed it. I can completely understand why a supporter of his or he would describe adding the truth to his wiki page as 'vandalizing' it and would want it deleted now that the truth is being added. Norco3921 (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The resolution referred to was out of order. It was libelous and violated both the LMRDA and ALPA Constitution & Bylaws, therefore, it will never be in any official meeting minutes. Since there is no valid source to reference the resolution, it needs to be removed from this Wiki page. Calguppyguy (talk) 02:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was ruled out of order, but the members overwhelmingly overruled the Chair's ruling with a challenge so it was 'in order'. How convenient that you left that out. Perhaps you should brush up on your Robert's Rules of Order. Norco3921 (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resolutions must be permissible under federal labor law. Resolutions which violate the LMRDA are properly ruled out of order. If the body overturns the chair's ruling, it doesn't change the fact that even if the resolution passes it is still in violation of the LMRDA and will not appear in the minutes or be acted on. Robert's rules don't take precedence over federal law. Calguppyguy (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, the resolution didn't violate LMRDA and ALPA Constitution & Bylaws, but feel free to cite the specific portions of these regs that you are citing. Otherwise, nice try. Norco3921 (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're here to discuss the notability of the article on Wikipedia, please take the labour squables elsewhere. Oaktree b (talk) 23:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A mirror resolution was passed in the Houston Local Council. It was not ruled out of order and passed overwhelmingly. The resolution does not violate the LMRDA and the ALPA Constitution & Bylaws and will be included in the minutes of the meeting. As the maker of the resolution, I am confident of this information. 96.94.152.89 (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been continually vandalized with uncited information. The community has allowed this vandalization and has frozen the page in its vandalized state. VOTE TO DELETE Greydog1! (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalize = telling the truth? Interesting. Norco3921 (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient depth of coverage from reliable sources. 22:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not interested in the brouhaha above in the AfD discussion; I don't see anything reliable on which to create an article. Union functionary and a pilot, that's about it. all I can find is a one line mention in the NYT [5]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this disaster of a PR drivel. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 03:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pandaga[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE. PROD removed, but no improvement was added DonaldD23 talk to me 01:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - found a review from Telugu newspaper Zamin Ryot here - (page 9 bottom left). DareshMohan (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Added full-length review from Zamin Ryot given above, and a restrospective article from India Herald. Although the latter is not a newspaper, it's a registered company (rather than a blog) per it's about us page, therefore going for weak keep. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per few citations that exist. Zeddedm (talk) 04:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deshae Darrell[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Football. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another cookie-cutter nomination with no evidence of WP:BEFORE. Lots of press coverage easily found on Google News. Sigcov in https://bernews.com/2017/09/deshae-darrell-wins-region-v-player-week/ https://bernews.com/2017/07/meet-bermuda-football-player-deshae-darrell/ https://www.royalgazette.com/soccer/sport/article/20170923/darrell-dazzles-for-bears/ https://www.royalgazette.com/soccer/sport/article/20171111/darrell-puts-lady-bears-through-to-final/ https://www.royalgazette.com/soccer/sport/article/20171116/darrell-wins-mvp-award-after-potent-debut-season/ pburka (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A copy and paste from the NJCAA website, an interview and two match reports don't go to GNG. The MVP award article contains a few lines on her but nowhere near enough for a GNG pass. Searching for sources didn't bring up anything useful. Dougal18 (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I could not find enough coverage to reach a GNG pass. Of the sources available from a search, this is a student newspaper at the Dallas College Brookhaven Campus, and is therefore not reliable, this is just a quote and a passing mention. The only source that looks half-decent I could find was this, which is not enough for a GNG pass by itself. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Pburka. Besides the sources they found, I found 7 and 8 among many many other sources from bernews.com and royalgazette.com etc. She is clearly significant figure in Bermuda women's and international football and helped Brookhaven College win their first national championship. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 20. By the time I finish writing this, another 20 will probably be deleted. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There were 7 articles across two sources brought up during AfD:

Ber News Region V Division III Women's Soccer Player of the Week: straight press release, N; Ber News Meet Bermuda Football Player Deshae Darrell: pure Q&A interview, N
Royal Gazette #1 ("dazzles"), #2 ("final"), #3 ("MVP"), #4 ("fruit"), some very positive "hometown girl makes it big"-style commentary on her performances at D3 junior college matches and the NJCAA Division III Women's Championship, all by the same author. Together they amount to non-trivial coverage, but each is essentially a routine recap with almost nothing of encyclopedic value, N. #5 ("scholarship") is another press release, N. I think Bermuda might be the number 1 source for this Texas community college's sports news! Nevertheless, the hyperlocal focus without any broader attention suggests limited appetite for a standalone page of global interest. JoelleJay (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Agree sources above not good enough. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Khan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR / WP:NFILMMAKER. Article appears to seek to inherit notability by association with actors. WP:NOTINHERITED. This is WP:ADMASQ 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks secondary sources, fails WP:GNG. Chagropango (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagwant Anmol[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Found no significant coverage and nothing here to establish notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. BBSTOP (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and India. BBSTOP (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV, does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Chagropango (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear sir,

Could you please let me know, what notability do you require? Is there anything bigger than Sahitya Akademi in India? He is Sahitya Akademi Awardee. On the day, he was awarded Sahitya Akademi award, the very next day this article was proposed to be deleted? If a Sahitya Akademi winner can't be in wikipedia then who will be? Shivamco19 (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sufficient notability. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of interpolated songs[edit]

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

WP:OR all of the sources fail WP:RS, also no mention of term. We have Interpolation (classical music), they are not related. Acous mana 15:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Acous mana 15:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpolation (popular music). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Weird Al song mentioned is from a different song and band than the one listed. So inaccurate information. Also most of his songs are parodies of other songs, so that'd fill up its own list. Is this list suppose to be full parody songs, or those that just borrow a brief bit from the original? Do reliable sources cover this anywhere? Dream Focus 19:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to "Trapped in the Drive-Thru"? It does actually interpolate Led Zeppelin's "Black Dog" so that is correct. It is a parody of R. Kelly's "Trapped in the Closet". As stated in lede, parodies, cover versions and direct samples must not be listed as those are not interpolations. Hiddenstranger (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although "Trapped In the Drive-Thru" is a parody of "Trapped in the Closet", Weird Al's version also interpolates "Black Dog" at around 6:25. TomasNotThomas (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are some sources, although in the lede, it says "References can be found in the articles of either the interpolated song or the interpolating song, or both." So really the sources in the actual song articles should also be included in the List of interpolated songs page for each entry listed. See also the now improved article Interpolation (popular music). Hiddenstranger (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whosampled is not WP:RS, and a large number of the entries have no sources whatsoever so fail WP:LSC - blatant WP:OR. Acous mana 11:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - See my vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpolation (popular music). I think the problem here is the lack of a distinct definition of the term "interpolated", which is an issue in the pop music media sources used. That in turn makes this list article look like original research with an indiscriminate focus, because the music media can't decide if the traditional technique of interpolation corresponds with rap songs that simply use really long samples. That disconnect is reflected in this list article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I have time I'll start adding reliable sources to prove the entries listed, but remove ones where sources are lacking. "Sampling" is not the term to be used here, as all the songs listed contain interpolations, not direct samples (although both direct samples and interpolations can appear together in one song) – it doesn't matter if songs contain interpolations even for a few seconds or throughout a whole song, they're all interpolations anyhow. Though related, there is a distinct difference between sampling and interpolation. Hiddenstranger (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

without clear RS sourcing, everything you have just stated is WP:OR, anything unqualified needs to be excised, and if there is nothing left after that, there is nothing to keep. Acous mana 18:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some editors who are knowledgeable about music to chime in here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Currently adding sources to each entry. Hiddenstranger (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving it one more round to accommodate the improvements done in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 05:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I already voted above. Over at the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpolation (popular music) we ended up with a "no consensus", which will probably be the case here too. Kudos to the editor who has expanded this list article, but I am still very skeptical on whether a working definition of "interpolation" has been narrowed down, not just here but in the various magazine articles that are being used as sources. All of these interrelated Wikipedia pages need to figure that out or admit that there is no precise definition of the term. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at lest untill comunity consensus decides on an complete definition of the term "interpolation". Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, especially if and when more sources are found. Brad (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

H-Sphere[edit]

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

I can't find sources to prove WP:GNG. As it is, the article has a very promotional tone that would be more appropriate in a blog post comparing different softwares for consumers than a Wikipedia article, and I can't find enough information to improve it. Chagropango (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't seem to find sources about this thing either. Results for '"H-sphere"' show that it's some sort of geometric concept, but searches for '"h-sphere" software' show a bunch of manuals and guides. Best thing I could find was this. Hope others may uncover other sources because this can't be it. SWinxy (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional puff piece, see the bold remarks on the "advantages" section. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mireille Kuyangisa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salote Yaya[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. No Google News results as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - added sources. I'd also like to draw people's attention to the comment from the closer on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okilani Tinilau (2nd nomination): "As a project, we must have some sensitivity to the fact that there will be subjects from minority groups in smaller countries for whom sources in English will be sparse or less accessible than for subjects in large English-speaking countries." This purge of Oceanian sportspeople really looks like WP:BIAS.--IdiotSavant (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @IdiotSavant:. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 2 keep votes do say something i can agree with, however, we must be extra carefull, because, if we start accepting mostly-unsourced articles just because they are not from an english-speaking country, we may accidentally open the floodgates for spam. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: These 2 articles are good, but not enough. boxscorenews, Fiji Sun. If you can find 1-2 more articles then it should be good.Samanthany (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: GNG doesn't include a minimum number of sources for establishing notability, and there are clearly multiple sources available for this player. Seany91 (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sourcing has not been shown to exist, and neither a pointer to a closing statement at a contested AfD nor an argument that other projects have fewer deletions is a policy based reason to keep. Star Mississippi 02:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Bakaniceva[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources such as [6] and [7] are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - added sources. I'd also like to draw people's attention to the comment from the closer on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okilani Tinilau (2nd nomination): "As a project, we must have some sensitivity to the fact that there will be subjects from minority groups in smaller countries for whom sources in English will be sparse or less accessible than for subjects in large English-speaking countries.". --IdiotSavant (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. FBC News source fine, but not enough on its own. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @IdiotSavant:. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only one secondary source has been found which gives the subject significant coverage, therefore they still fail WP:GNG. English is extremely widespread in Fiji in any case, so there is clearly no indication that sources in the language would be particularly rare. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't enough sourcing to prove notability, plain and simple. It's close to the borderline though, so ping me if anything else is found. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 23:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Génesis Samuels[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. No Google news results as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Panama. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Singh[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. I searched under the article title and found this [8]. Not sure if this is the same person, but even if it was, one article would not equal SIGCOV. Her full name only brought up trivial sources such as [9] and [10] among others. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laijipa Daini[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. No Google News results as well. Sources such as [11] are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think this might be a source, but the last name is different. This is the camp which selected the OFC team, other reporting around it makes it clear that the Laijipa Daini at the camp was selected, but there's nothing to pin it down (and not a lot else to go on).--IdiotSavant (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm sorry to say none of the "keep" arguments directly pertain to this page. If there are issues with mass nominations (and there may be; I make no judgement either way) this ought to be raised at a noticeboard that can handle it. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bela Ratubalavu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources such as [12] and [13] among others, are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a short article about her with some detailed biographical information at https://fijisun.com.fj/2009/08/07/bella-leads-by-example/ (note the alternative spelling of her first name). If someone finds a second solid source I'd be a keep. pburka (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above article.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @Pburka: and @Ortizesp:. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately I could not find any additional coverage outside of the Fiji Sun article, a search under both variants of his name brought up only a couple of passing mentions within match reports. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Nothing here indicates notability. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 17:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emely Dow[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources such as [14] are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Panama. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phanilka Evans[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Panama. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zeen Limbai[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. No Google news hits as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete voting delete.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Winas[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources are trivial such as [15] and [16]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rumona Morris[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources such as [17] and [18] among others, are all trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added sources, including a large article from the National. [19] There's likely more there - I got bored paging through it all. And I didn't look for rugby material. I'd also like to draw people's attention to the comment from the closer on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okilani Tinilau (2nd nomination): "As a project, we must have some sensitivity to the fact that there will be subjects from minority groups in smaller countries for whom sources in English will be sparse or less accessible than for subjects in large English-speaking countries." This purge of Oceanian sportspeople really looks like WP:BIAS, especially when targeting teams off to the women's world cup.--IdiotSavant (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment she's played more than 2 games for her country, as she's in the squad in 2010, 2014 and 2022. WP:OFFLINESOURCES may well exist. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per IdiotSavant, we have one good source: [20], and the online coverage of news in this country is not as high as the Western World (and lots of newspapers don't feature prominently on Google search), so reasonable to presume other sources exist. No WP:BEFORE looks to have been done. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per @IdiotSavant: and @Joseph2302:. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage for GNG. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources on the page seem to be good enough (source 4 through 7 all seem significant). EternalNomad (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Kaikas[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOLYMPICS. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources are trivial and/or databases/stats. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TSventon (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damali Simon-Ponte[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:59, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey Track, Indiana[edit]

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

This is an "I got nothing'" case: I can find nothing out about this place besides what GNIS says, and the topos and aerials are not at all illuminating. About as non-notable as anything gets. Mangoe (talk) 02:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like there's just a few churches there. There's probably a story behind the name, but I can't find any record of it. Chagropango (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Chagropango, here is something about that — Jacona (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Newspapers.com, especially the Martinsville Reporter-Times, has thousands of results. Everything I looked for was passing coverage, such as a Man from Turkey Track was shot, someone from Turkey Track died, entertained guests, etc. Many referred to the rest park, the hill, the road, a church, guests in a home or an outbreak of flu. The paper had a regular Turkey Track news column and even a story about a correspondent. It's plenty to prove the place exists and was populated, but I couldn't find anything I would call SIGCOV. Jacona (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awan Pookot[edit]

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

Fails WP:Nactor. Only did a notable role in one film, not multiple. No update on that Hindi film since. Not many sources other than upcoming Bollywood debut, which never happened.

Basically, all sources relate to non-existant Bollywood debut and not Minnal Murali or this actor so notability is never established. DareshMohan (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Dawn (band)#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 01:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Dawn: Live[edit]

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

Google, News, Books, News Archives and Scholar searches did not turn up any references that satisfies WP:NALBUM.

If you prefer to conduct your own search, you will encounter several false positives from the Before the Dawn live album's hits.

Plausible WP:ATD would be to redirect to The_Dawn_(band)#Discography Lenticel ^(talk) 02:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Dawn (band)#Discography. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Dawn (band)#Discography. Today, the album is only visible in the usual streaming and retail sites. Not enough for an article here unless someone can dig up Filipino hard-copy sources from 1989. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per above. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Dawn (band)#Discography. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Dawn (band)#Discography per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Dawn (band)#Discography per nom, fails WP:NALBUM. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

La Montagne family[edit]

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

User:Belyny brought this to my attention. I apparently had declined a draft, but the article was added to mainspace anyway. I can't find any mention of this family. It's possible the family did run a diamond factory, but if so, it wasn't a notable one. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Belgium. Justi yaya 09:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is three sentences long and has no sources cited. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- A little more has been added to the article, but in terms of establishing this as a notable family, I note that none of the cited sources appear to indicate that any of the three mentioned people were related to each other. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you check the German and Dutch versions of the page, there are at least 7 or 8 sources, and apparently the family is documented in a museum somewhere in Europe. I don't know if that makes it notable, but the information and sources from the Dutch and German pages could be imported. Chagropango (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are a couple of what first appear to be acceptable sources in both, but when you click on them, turn out to be dead. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone wants to use the sources cited in the German or Dutch versions, they would have to look up those sources and cite specific facts to specific citations. For example, one of the sources cited in nl:De la Montagne is cited there as "Detlev Schwennicke, European Family Tables. Detlev Schwennicke, European Family Tables." This appears to be a reference to the set Europäische Stammtafeln edited by Rev. Detlev Schwennicke, but someone is going to have to locate where the family is mentioned in one of those 29 volumes if they want to use that source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The author of the article (Philip.anno.1976) is responsable in different Wkipedias (German, Dutch and French versions) of a hoax about this family La Montagne (of which he seems a member) that he presents with fake sources linked to the House of Faucogney (became extinct in the 14th Century). When you remove everything that is a hoax (link between La Montagne family and House of Faucogney) there is only a La Montagne family working in the diamond industry in Antwerp in the 19th centurym but without any notoriety and with rigged sources which do not provide the information indicated. This international hoax is a waste of time for others. --Belyny (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wendell Rennie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Grenada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Rennie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Grenada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Rennie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Grenada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Andall[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Grenada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Rennie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Grenada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Sportsfan 1234. There is little to no evidence or RS documentation that Rennie has achieved the requisite notoriety to have this Wiki page. I vote to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Would be BLPPROD anyways Asparagusus (interaction) 00:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Plainview, Mandaluyong. ✗plicit 00:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maysilo Circle[edit]

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

Contested prod.

Prod rationale by User:Mr.weedle is as follows:

This is a roundabout - not notable per Wikipedia:Notability

As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral on the matter. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: criticizing the three extant sources used in the article:

Of Mandaluyong city official website — no mention of the circle, nothing to prove the correlation between the circle and the prior development supposed to stand on the site before the roundabout's inception.
2016 ABS-CBN News article — the circle is secondary topic; main topic of this news article is about the drainage project that was then being constructed in the roundabout.
AutoIndutriya.com article — brief mention of the circle.

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added

Comment: on top of that, the entire heading paragraph of the article is unsourced. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: While Maysilo Circle is a vital commercial area of Mandaluyong and the location of its city government center, I do agree that the circle itself is not inherently notable. In fact, the history section talks more about Barangay Plainview and as such can easily be moved to that article instead, which actually lacks any information at the moment. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 06:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Plainview, Mandaluyong. Fails WP:GEO per above arguments. The ABS-CBN article is reliable and in-depth enough IMV, but it's not good enough to warrant a standalone article. SBKSPP (talk) 01:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Plainview, Mandaluyong. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Plainview, Mandaluyong per Ganmatthew. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Egzona Seljimi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Albania, and Switzerland. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maja Gjurova[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and North Macedonia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nilar Myint[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Myanmar. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yee Yee Oo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Myanmar. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: would be BLPPROD anyways Asparagusus (interaction) 00:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thin Thin Yu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Myanmar. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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