< August 26	August 28 >

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

The result was keep. The only other participant in the discussion contested deletion by citing coverage that seems to help the subject pass GNG. Despite two relists, this sourcing has not been challenged. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amro Al-Wir[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Jordan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He does seem to get some coverage from Jordanian Press including for setting the Jordanian record in the 100m.^[1] I'm not sure if it's totally passing WP:GNG, but this person seems to have an actively developing career, so it doesn't seem harmful to keep the article. He also gets mentioned a bit in the press for winning medals at the Arab Swimming Championships^[2], although one could argue that coverage is routine. It seems between the arabic and english language sources he is at least approaching WP:GNG. TartarTorte 16:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 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 redirect to List of Barbadian representative cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Graydon Nesfield[edit]

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

Only one database source, which fails to assert Nesfield's notability. A Google search only has the Wikipedia article and some databases. NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Barbados. NotReallySoroka (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Barbadian representative cricketers A singular game, but not enough that I can see in a search to suggest a GNG pass, and with that singular game I'm not sure there will be coverage offline anyway. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD, and should have been BOLDly redirected there really. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, this is an obvious redirect to the List of Barbadian representative cricketers. That way the article history and attribution is preserved and if sources emerge they can be added. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Barbadian representative cricketers as per above Kpddg ^(talk) 15:35, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Al Subail[edit]

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

Subject does not pass WP:GNG or WP:SNG. Sources are all notices of his death. Only assertions of notability are surviving a terrorist attack, serving on religious committees, had a handful of famous students. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Saudi Arabia. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep he was imam for decades of the most prominent mosque in the world [1] and a key theological authority e.g. [2]--Jahaza (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His name comes up once in this book so I don't know if it would really pass WP:SIGCOV, as for the newspaper article it doesn't really tell us anything about him other then he died so I don't think it's really helping the article here. But there might be some non-english sources that I can't access which could be helpful. If we can find them over the next week or so and clean this article up I'll withdraw this AfD nomination as a Speedy Keep. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr vulpes, This source does give us some details about him. He spent his life in the service of Islam, the king and the country as a former preacher and imam of the Grand Mosque in Makkah, President General of the Affairs of the Grand Mosque and the Prophet's Mosque, member of the Council of Senior Religious Scholars and as a member of the Islamic jurisprudence complex as well as many other achievements. That's why I say, his imam-ship at the Masjid al-Haraam makes him notable in his subjective field. He has been quoted in this book, The Future of Islam by John Esposito. There should be something more. ─ The Aafī (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have also been able to locate a lengthy article about him in Daily Jang, a well known Pakistani newspaper. This and all the other coverage put together inclines towards passing GNG. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His religious edicts have also been quoted at other places, for example, this from 263rd issue of an Urdu journal called Muhaddith, published from Lahore, Pakistan. ─ The Aafī (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Jahaza noted above. His imam-ship at the Masjid al-Haraam makes him notable and widely recognized in his subjective fields. ─ The Aafī (talk) 06:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok so we have a fatawa calling Ghulam Ahmed Parvez an atheist, a notice that he died, and a single line in a book saying it's wrong to kill people from Israel. Am I reading this correctly? Am I missing something here? Are there any interviews with him? Articles about his readings of the Quran? Articles about his work in the community? The article on his passing is pretty good but we need more to establish WP:GNG Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 08:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article from Arab News gives us pretty much details, which I'd deem as significant, and the Urdu article from Daily Jang is definitely significant; and both of these are independent and reliable in my opinion. I'm not saying this is enough but if we include all the other little coverage with this - it definitely inclines towards GNG. I was able to find a detailed biography of him that discusses his works in detail but I'm not sure who is the author, it could be someone from his family too. I do not know Arabic very much. Nonetheless, his imam-ship at the Masjid al-Haraam is a borderline notability case for me, and I'm still in favour of keep. I'm not on my system and not in a position to dig more but I'd surely give more tries to this after Wednesday. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^{^(talk)} 05:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Jahaza describe above. He was notable imam. Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 13:34, 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!} 23:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Varian Carty[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources on the page are trivial, and sources such as [3] are also trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly significant figure in Anguillan football and probably one of few Anguillan players ever to play outside England. 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) 15:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nom's analysis of sources. I also did specifically check [4] just in case, but got no results. As for Das's keep, I don't see any evidence that Varian is a clearly significant figure in Anguillan football in the sources (and yeah, there's structural issues with AfD but that's not what I'm here to discuss). —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 22:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ProQuest and Google News have passing mentions only. The "Clearly significant figure in Anguillan football" comment by Das is totally unsubstantiated. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:39, 3 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sikander Ghuman[edit]

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

Non-notable singer/actor; draftification is impossible due to a previous attempt of this nature being draftified under the same name. Google search only pulls up the same ToI tabloidy junk under a role byline as is already in the article and no actual significant coverage (string: "sikander ghuman"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 22:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cut and paste copy of Draft:Sikander Ghuman. Should be deleted and the draft page go through the AfC process. Gusfriend (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I encountered this article a bit ago at the new pages feed and agree. The picture in the article is apparently "original work" of the person who created the article, so it's probably paid and/or conflict of interest. The multiple issues tag has been changing around for a bit, but the fact that it's there is a problem when the article is so new. Asparagusus (interaction) 04:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly an attempted promotion for a musician who is just getting started, and reprints of his publicity announcements at unreliable gossip sites do not constitute the evidence that is necessary here. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victory (punjabi song). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and per other users suggesting this is being used for promotion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – can't find any independent sourcing taking about him. --bonadea contributions talk 11:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block the creator as a SOA. This is nothing more than exaggerated vanity spam sourced to the usual suspects engaging in paid pr without identifying it (aka blackhat SEO) PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many Wikipedians (including me) find and artist Sikander Ghuman as a reliable source while creating Indian-related articles. Deleting a artist page will close the door to other content as well and this will definitely hurt the expansion of Wikipedia. There must be a tool to find out how often Sikander Ghuman has been cited on Wikipedia and this should be seen as a consensus of the community over a news source. Yes, I know, but it give you little idea of its popularity. Its notability is not completely based on social media. Sikander Ghuman is among top actor in Indian film industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alibaba00450 (talk • contribs) 17:21 September 3, 2022 (UTC) — Alibaba00450 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This argument is laughable at best and outright bullshit at worst. The times where we would consider a singer a reliable source are infinitesimally small, and if Ghuman is indeed being cited as extensively as you claim, then those cites need to be straight-up removed. On that note, what is your connexion to IamNasirZaman (talk · contribs)? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 17:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep We have already discussed and other things like Sikander Ghuman was among less than one dozen sites that are freely available in India on internet.org, in the previous nomination. This is just not spammy. It's a short bio which is encylopedic, and then a short career history. He may well not be notable, but there's credible indication as artist. This is a very famous and popular artist of Punjabi language. And this actor is very much liked all over the world Millions of people have searched this Artist on google That's why it was very important to make Wikipedia of this actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alibaba00450 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC) [reply]
This argument is, once again, laughable at best and outright bullshit at worst. I suspect you're copy-pasting arguments from other AfDs and just slapping in "this guy is famous"; that isn't going to work since those arguments are highly unlikely to apply to the circumstances here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment deletion discussion page We should remove this notice as soon as possible So that our Wikipedia Sikander Ghuman is safe and we people should just don't discussion doing it now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alibaba00450 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC) [reply]
AfD notices cannot be removed while the debate is ongoing. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've struck the comments and !vote from Alibaba00450 as block evasion. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 20:55, 3 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christos Kythraiotis[edit]

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

i'm not gonna pretend like i'm an expert on anything sports related, but I did some digging (papers, books, google, of course) and the race he supposedly placed ins website and I can't find anything to verify that this guy actually exists in any capacity related to being a cyclist or placing in a championship - in fact, I did find some coverage under the Greek spelling but for an author who is very much not this guy. I also believe the 2007 championship article which names him (and was created by the same person who created this article) is being conflated with another notable race, which is US based.

I removed the sole source that's ever been here as it's UGEN and not reliable and *every* result I can find about this person is from a Wikipedia mirror. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Delete meets WP:NCYC as winning the national championships, I then found a source from a news site to back up the page and added it. Paulpat99 (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet again removed the unreliable sources - not a single one is an RS and there are no sources about this person. PICKLEDICAE🥒 23:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Delete as there is no sources about the person just an event the person did. Although they are notable, no sources exist. Paulpat99 (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not able to find any sources that meet GNG after a before search. ––FormalDude talk 10:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So this guy does exist and has indeed won national competitions in Cyprus per the club website - note that his surname is spelt differently in Greek from the author mentioned above. I am not too comfortable !voting delete as I know that online coverage of niche Cypriot sports from 2007 is incredibly patchy (any sports publications from the time would not have been digitised) but the fact that I can’t even find a few sentences outside of the club website does indicate that such coverage is less likely to exist, so I will go for a weak delete here. —GGT (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dug into some archives of papers and books and there is nothing about him in Greek or English, if that helps. PICKLEDICAE🥒 22:34, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Stevens (pastor)[edit]

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

No reliable sources to establish notability. BilCat (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep as multiple SIGCOV and reliable sources provided. I'd ask that you reconsider nominating articles for deletion immediately after they're deprodded by someone who says that sources are available. It's close to assuming bad faith. Was I just fibbing when I said that there's a clip file? No.[5]--Jahaza (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How would I know? You didn't cite the link in your de-prod. But from looking at the file, it seems to be local notability only. There's still no evidence of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. BilCat (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You would know by assuming good faith that when I said it in the edit summary I wasn't just making it up. There's no need to push so hard and fast for deletion.--Jahaza (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Local notability only is not, as far as I can tell, actually a policy based thing. The clip file includes multiple "significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources". That those sources are local or regional newspapers isn't actually a policy-based reason for deletion, especially when there's a general claim of notability for a particular reason (founder of a college).--Jahaza (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We generally keep heads of universities (let alone founders) per WP:NACADEMIC #6. There is no evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed in this instance, although as a common name it is a little difficult to search for. But I found this source easily enough and this and that has convinced me that more sources will be forthcoming. St Anselm (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As the founder of Carolina University, he certainly ought to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the clipping file, the guy passes GNG. Some of those papers are regional. The Sentinel was the city paper for a long time, but others like the Mebane paper are a good distance away from WS. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:28, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Thomas (martial artist)[edit]

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

unsourced article for 12+ years about a "b list" actor, and I can't find any actual sources (newspapers, books, credits or otherwise) to substantiate an article. PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Martial arts, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only things that seem to pop up on a quick Google search are YouTube and Facebook (and the like). Not notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. The article also says that his name is often inconsistent on the credits of movies, so there wouldn't be sources talking about him under that name, anyway. Asparagusus (interaction) 05:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found no evidence of him being notable as an actor or martial artist. I also didn't see anything to convince me that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 23:28, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sloan Station, Illinois[edit]

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

No evidence of a community at this location, and not enough coverage to establish notability as a train station. –dlthewave ☎ 21:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and Illinois. –dlthewave ☎ 21:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Literally just a grain elevator. Not notable. I found nothing usable from a quick BEFORE search. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Andre🚐 03:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:43, 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!} 23:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kramer Junction, California[edit]

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

This is nothing more than a road junction just outside of Kramer and is not treated as a community by sources. The coverage cited in the article mainly concerns construction in the area which simply uses Kramer Junction as a point of reference. –dlthewave ☎ 21:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and California. –dlthewave ☎ 21:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything of use to California State Route 58, and then Delete the article. There's no reason to keep it as a redirect, but that highway construction information could be useful in State Route 58's history section. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Merge and delete - if content is merged then it needs to remain a redirect to maintain the attribution history. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then just Delete the inaccurate and policy-deficient geostub. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Andre🚐 03:22, 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 keep per WP:SNOW. Everyone's coming up with the same answer, and this is holding up a DYK nomination. So please, let's move on. (non-admin closure) —VersaceSpace 🌃 23:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Decker[edit]

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

being the CEO of a company, no matter how notable the company, does not on it's own make an individual notable. There is no actual meaningful coverage of Decker, everything is basically "Decker is the new CEO/set to takeover in October 2022". No objections to a redirect to Home Depot, where it should be mentioned. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I'll post a longer explanation later today, but suffice to say that this AfD fails on several ground: 1.) there are multiple reliable sources of coverage that discuss multiple points regarding the subject, including his educational history, prior employment, and heading of Home Depot during its highest-earning quarter (WP:BEFORE); 2.) this article is sourced reliably and can not flunk on BLP grounds (even the less-than-ideal Insider source is used with caution); 3.) nominating editor fails to demonstrate how the additional coverage of Decker doesn't demonstrate notability, even if his CEO position is not sufficient in of itself. Self-disclosure: I am the creating editor ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those sources aren't a press release or basic business announcement? How does this qualify for SK? I clearly did research and found everything is just press releases and business announcements and nothing in depth. PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you asked! First off, I have concerns regarding the research you performed before your non-procedural blanking of the article. You were editing other articles up until six minutes before that edit, suggesting less than five minutes of reviewing the content on the page and in the sources; unless you had previously familiarity with who Ted Decker is or had previously researched him, I have a hard time believing you did a significant degree of research before say "literally nothing more can be said about him other htan [sic] his HD position" or in the 11 minutes between when I procedurally reverted the deletion and you created this AfD. A maximum of 17 minutes, including performing the edits themselves, really doesn't say you did any serious research in the matter. Of course, that's not your job (and certainly not your job alone) and why I requested this process (thanks for going to AfD, by the way, makes things easier).

As for the rationale for SK: A substantial amount of this AfD is premised on WP:SINGLEEVENT (or at least a tangentially related notion that the one-time conferral of an executive position is insufficient for notability). However, with sources initiated by multiple events–Decker's appointment to an executive position in 2020, his announcement as CEO and president in Jan 2022, his role in Home Depot's highest-earning quarter on 16 August, and the announcement of his future chairmanship on 18 August–this barrier is surpassed. Even if we applied some of the more strict standards that result in redirects (e.g. George Holliday (witness) to Rodney King) Decker is the primary subject of multiple sources, thereby overcoming that barrier. Looking at WP:GNG, an article is generally suitable when the subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." We have non-trivial mentions of Decker in several independent sources–Yahoo News, Insider, and two from CNN the best examples here–so that general guideline is passed. There are further details about Decker's life in sources of less independence, hence their inclusion here, but overall we have a properly-sourced article covering a subject that has received multiple instances of coverage and a nominator who seems to have failed WP:BEFORE (but has also only acted in good faith and has a very cool username mod going on, it should be noted). So, speedy keep. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did my research, if you'd like to provide evidence that I didn't, I'll gladly withdraw. All I see here is a diatribe and no substance to your answer. :) Provide some non-PR, non-announcement, non-WP:MILL sources, and it'll solve the entire problem. PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have concerns: you responded in less than three minutes; you clearly did not consider everything I said with serious depth–or even noticed my compliment! :( Slow down, please, and consider what I've written in response to you. WP:MILL clearly does not apply when multiple individualized, narrowly-focused articles discuss the a specific person in a position of notability. As the article stands, we have at least four (and, if we're being generous with the college sources, six) independent, non-PR sources. Announcements, it should be noted, are reliable sources–particularly when they have additional information attached. I've given research you hadn't done your research, I gave you reasons why your nomination is flawed (you've only cited an essay with no official weight in your defense). In fact, the only thing you've said is that you don't like the breadth of coverage, despite me explaining detail why and how it passes Wikipedia (actual) standards. Not every criticism is personal diatribe, by the way, remember AGF! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit Conflict:) Okay, uninvolved editor here, saw this being halted at DYK. First off, @Pbritti & @PICKLEDICAE, let's calm down here. I recognize that blanking and redirecting is acceptable per policy, but it was still not a nice move given that it was at DYK then. A quick heads-up note to the involved parties would have been easy, PICKLEDICAE. Conversely, it doesn't help to accuse other editors of taking "too little time" to review content: I often have multiple tabs open at once, and the chronological order of my edits does not correspond to the time spent on evaluating the respective articles. So, also not so great, Pbritti.

Anyway, let's forget about this and instead turn to an analysis of the actual sources and notability, since this is what we are supposed to do at AfD:

Okay actually will be doing that tomorrow, since the article seems to be heavily edited atm. --LordPeterII (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant profile here[6] which is not yet incorporated into the article. There's too much to be said about Decker to incorporate it all into the article about Home Depot. Yes, just being CEO of a notable company doesn't make you notable, but being CEO of one of the largest companies in the country generally does and Home Depot is 35 on the Fortune 500[7] and the largest in its category.--Jahaza (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jahaza. If you haven't already beat me to it, I'll add that material ASAP. Thoroughly embarrassed that slipped through my dragnet. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: I would highly recommend checking out the Wikipedia Library if you haven't already. I have found some more coverage of Decker on ProQuest and Gale under his given name Edward, although you should be weary of press release wires as those are primary. DigitalIceAge (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DigitalIceAge: Here's where I admit something: I tried getting the Library to work for me but only made good use of it once before becoming confused and resorting to my old undergrad permissions that are expiring soon. I might ask you specific questions about it in a couple days once this has been resolved, as I will lose my old accesses very soon. Also, yes, those PR releases disguised as new sites are nasty things and I have an unfortunate familiarity with those outside Wikipedia (hence my limited use of the one here). If you say they're considered primary, I'll probably delete it and its material out of an abundance of caution. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: Fortunately ProQuest has the ability to exclude Wire Feeds from search results using the settings at the sidebar. I can't say the same for Gale.com (or maybe I'm just not looking hard enough). DigitalIceAge (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Incorporated the aforementioned profile article. Just eeks out in notability IMO, will surely have more coverage in the coming months as the CEO of a Fortune 100. DigitalIceAge (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG - ample coverage in RS and no doubt more to come. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Home Depot. No notability aside from Home Depot. Andre🚐 01:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC) Weak keep, at least one source seems non-Home Depot-related. Andre🚐 04:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references in the article are perfectly adequate to establish notability and all of the content is verifiable. Decker is the current president and CEO of a company with over $150 billion in annual sales and nearly 500,000 employees. He will be the chairman of the board in a month. This is an encyclopedia with 6.5 million articles including biographies of countless young rappers and actors and athletes at the beginnings of their careers. Certainly, it ought to have room for a biography of a very senior corporate executive. Cullen328 (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Cullen328, Hawkeye7, DigitalIceAge, and Jahaza: I haven't been around at AfD for very long, but I must admit I am very confused by (parts of) your reasonings here. Voting 'Keep' might be appropriate, but imo we need to be very careful how we argue. I'll go through some percieved errors:

a) The article has been nominated now, which means we should evaluate its notability at this point ("However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface"). True, it is likely that coverage will increase in the future; but we don't have a crystal ball, we don't know that for sure. If we allow hypothetical, future sources to be considered as contributing to establishing notability, we would have tens of thousands of articles who should be kept, for now, because who knows, maybe the future will bring more sources? Again, in this case it is much more likely than in many others, but we must not allow this fallacy to be thought a valid reason.

b) Notability has to established for every article subject, individually. Yes, Home Depot is a large company and yes, it is likely that their CEO would be notable. But arguing that he is notable purely due to the size of the company, is another dangerous fallacy. Again, this opens the door for keeping thousands of bogus articles whose subject is related to someone or something famous, and derives all their notability from the related article.

c) That we have countless biographies of people at the start of their carreer does not imply that we should accept some other article of a person who is at a later stage of their carreer. Notability does depend on the sources available, and these may vary wildly for reasons beyond our influence. WP:Otherstuffexists, albeit only an essay, sums this up pretty well.

Feel free to reply to this and point out any errors on my side (again, I'm still learning). Also, I didn't meant to criticise you or your vote, but merely your reasoning. --LordPeterII (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In order to finally cast my own vote, I'll use a nifty template I've recently came across, Template:Source assess table. I'd like to note that sourcing has improved a lot since this was nominated for deletion, so being assessed are the current sources:

Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:LordPeterII
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/27/home-depot-names-ted-decker-ceo-craig-menear-will-remain-board-chair.html		The article is mainly about the company, Home Depot, and mentions both current and new CEOs only briefly	✘ No
https://eu.goerie.com/story/business/2020/10/19/fairview-native-ted-decker-named-president-coo-home-depot-erie/5978002002/		This is in-depth and primarily about Decker, his life, education and (also) his new role	✔ Yes
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/business/home-depot-ceo-ted-decker/index.html		~ Is partly about Decker, but very short	~ Partial
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/home-depot-appoints-ted-decker-161718440.html	Seems to reproduce a company statement, with the majority being a quote by the board director, full of PR talk	Very short, and equally about Decker and previous CEO Menear	✘ No
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2448032435	~ Part article, part reproduction of company announcements (actually states that in the article, you can check per Wikimedia Library)	~ Decker is the first point, but a list of other appointments and company revenues follows	~ Partial
https://www.cmu.edu/tepper/recruiting-and-partnerships/partner-with-the-tepper-school/wl-mellon-speaker-series/ted-decker.html	~ This is explicitly filed under "Recruiters & Partners > Corporate Partnerships", so even though this is from a university, I am sceptical of it being truly independent	Actually about him and somewhat in-depth, no doubt	~ Partial
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/18/home-depot-ceo-ted-decker-to-replace-retiring-craig-menear-as-chairman.html	~ Mostly a repetition of the press releases already featured in several of the other sources	~ Not just a passing mention, but still mostly saying "this guy has been with the company before, here are some basic facts, he's a good choice"	~ Partial
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/16/investing/home-depot-earnings-housing/index.html	Mostly original text for once, actual journalism	This is mostly Ted Decker discussing the company. When his name comes up, he is quoted saying something. We learn little to nothing about him, he is just a speaker here	✘ No
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/home-depot-elects-ted-decker-as-chair-of-board-authorizes-15-bln-share-repurchase-1031694257	This is a repetition of press releases again	~ Again very short, if mostly about Decker. We learn a little about his previous company posts, but not much else	✘ No
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/15/joe-manchin-raises-1-million-from-bob-kraft-wall-street-energy-companies.html	Completely independent (text), has nothing to do with Home Depot or Decker	Decker is mentioned exactly once, at the very end, for donating money to a reelection campaign.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

If you agree with this assessment (and I do), that leaves us with one (1) good source, and four (4) partially-acceptable sources. Ideally, we would have three (3) good sources, which satisfy all three criteria. This is thus not an obvious and easy pass of WP:GNG, but a very difficult and close one. And again, this only after the recent work; previously e.g. the source identified as good was not in the article. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep is my resulting vote. I am going to count each "partial" source as equivalent of half a good source, which results in a combined three "usable sources". This is exactly the minimum that I and many other editors have for establishing notability. I would not object to a Merge, since this is very borderline; but voting seems to be rather leaning towards Keep. Again, I encourage everyone who cast their votes above to carefully evaluate the sources again, and check if they were actually voting based on these and policy, or on their subjective impressions. Of course I have come to a similar conclusion now, so it might just be that the other Keep votes were only phrased poorly. But I don't believe PICKLEDICAE made a mistake in nominating this, it was a tough and close one. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to LordPeterII. I did not argue that he is notable purely due to the size of the company. I began my comment with The references in the article are perfectly adequate to establish notability and all of the content is verifiable. In essence, I concluded succinctly what you later concluded in much greater detail. I mentioned Verifiability, which is a core content policy that this article meets. It also meets the other two core content policies because it is neutrally written and contains no original research. Notability is not a policy; it is a very important guideline, but not one that should be mistaken for a policy. Its language says that it is a guideline that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Yes, we should be guided by common sense not cookie cutter logic. The guideline goes on to say Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics. Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below. Yes, "indiscriminate inclusion" is a concern, which is why AfD is clogged up with massive numbers of articles about obscure cricketers and footballers and other such microstubs . But as far as I know, nobody is complaining about an excessive number of biographies of the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. The language of the guideline says that notability does not depend on importance but it indisputably permits us to consider importance in borderline cases. All experienced editors know that promotional biographies are a serious problem here, which is why I mentioned the young rappers, actors and athletes. We are by some measures the #7 website in the world, and clearly #1 in terms of originally written educational content. Countless people yearn for their own Wikipedia biography. So, we must always be on the alert for promotional content about "up and coming" people and companies, especially in borderline cases. Our special notability guidelines about people and companies accordingly are shaped largely by concerns about promotionslism. We should be far less concerned about biographies of people who are self-evidently at the pinnacle of success, at the helms of gigantic, indisputably notable corporations. You raised concerns about WP:CRYSTAL but that forbids unverifiable speculation, rumors or presumptions and in this case we know with almost complete certainty that he will become chairman of the board on October 1. Therefore, crystal ball concerns are not valid. In the end, this is a test of good editorial judgment. Our goal should always be to improve and expand an excellent encyclopedia. I am convinced that this encyclopedia is better off with this article than without it. Cullen328 (talk) 16:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: Interesting. I actually wasn't aware of the (technical, but important) distinction between Verifiability and Notability as policy and guideline, respectively. I shall aim to remember that henceforth! I also acknowledge that my allusion to WP:CRYSTAL was not great, as you pointed out. And I wholeheartedly agree on the issue that people yearn for their own Wikipedia biography. I think I was being overly pedantic in this instance, because I wanted to make sure that the apparent ease at which Keep votes were given out was not due to us having lax rules. Yes, I trust you and the other editors I pinged to have checked the article, but I wanted to point out what you would likely have done behind the scenes, lest some phrasing of your replies might be misinterpreted.

I should add that I am lately trying to be as critical towards "veteran" editors as I am towards "new" ones, for fairness' sake. But I have seen you around (the Teahouse especially), Cullen328, and know you are an asset to this community; so please know that the critical analysis above was also me practicing arguing here, even though I knew you were likely not in the wrong :) --LordPeterII (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to chime in and thank LordPeterII for the review of sources (was not previously aware of that template despite participating in a dozen AfDs) and Cullen328 for the comprehensive explanation of policy and guidelines. Might end up linking both of your contributions in this thread for my own use down the line. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article meets WP:GNG because the subject has received significant coverage about him directly, beyond just his work with his company, in reliable sources independent of the subject. In this case, the subject has been covered by multiple national news sources (CNBC, CNN, Business Insider) and multiple sources with knowledge of him on a local level (AJC, Erie Times-News). The article references these multiple independent sources that talk about the subject directly, which is why it meets WP:GNG. David Stargell (talk) 02:00, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loriann Oberlin[edit]

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

Promotional article about a subject that does not appear to meet WP:BIO; other than a Publisher's Weekly review of one of her books and a Newspaper.com link that doesn't mention her, all sources appear to be primary. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional puff piece for a non-notable person. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The piece appears very... fluffy, to say the least. I'd second the deletion, primarily out of the concern of its lack of overall notability. The individual in question doesn't appear to be well-listed as a contributor to any of the fields she is discussed in, the structural approach is remarkably personalized with respect to the merit of any accomplishments, and the original purpose of the article's creation may very well have been questionable in the first place. Though I may be unfamiliar for the most part with deletion candidates apart from this one, the fact that this rather obscure page about a professional is deemed notable enough to garner a page doesn't sit right with me. Even without all the inadequate detailing that doesn't fit in with Wikipedia's policies, I'd be reluctant to even keep the page if it was perfectly cleaned up. ...You have my go-ahead with the deletion!!! Anyone else...? TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find sources for the largely unsourced information in this article. She appears to have co-written one book (on passive-aggression) that sold well; other books don't seem to have had an impact. However, I don't find any information about her, and the one well-received book isn't enough for NAUTH. Lamona (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article should be deleted unless you want to keep it as a training ground for new Wikipedia editors. Based on the information provided in the article, Loriann Oberlin is not a person of sufficient notability to warrant a Wikipedia entry. Her only notable accomplishment consists of co-authoring the book Overcoming Passive-Aggression (2005), which has itself not been important or influential enough to meet the criteria for a "Creative Professional" in WP:BIO. Her other works are largely self-published or published by ebook companies. The article's references are mainly from sources of dubious integrity and promotional intent. Finally, the article appears to have been written either by Loriann Oberlin herself or someone interested in promoting her, as it is full of subjective, tedious, and unverifiable claims. Glenstorm85 (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was unable to find enough strong reliable sources to support Oberlin's notability. Dobblestein 🎲 🎲 talk 22:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also searched for evidence of Oberlin's contributions in academic research journals, media archives, and other non-primary sources but only found one piece that included her 2005 book. ErrataNonGrata (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a non-notable page to me. Has anyone found any evidence otherwise? user:Skullovitch — Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the strangest thing but since this article has been nominated, there have been dozens of new accounts that have popped up to edit it and this AFD. Sockfarm, Drmies? Seems like a strange target for socks but I have given up trying to make sense of their behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wondered the same thing Liz, but I think there could be a more benign explanation. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked a few per NOTHERE. Here's my rationale: if someone came to that article to do a little thing, and then made one or two small edits elsewhere, they're not here to improve our beautiful project. CU shows nothing that makes any sense, but I haven't checked all of them. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I misread and thought we were talking about this discussion; I see the actual article edit history now. WTH? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:16, 3 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 01:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chah-e Sangi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Mass-created article by User:Carlossuarez46 based on unreliable databases; name of this putative village is of a well. Incorrectly deprodded, since the prior AfD was for a disambiguation page with 1 entry. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. Mccapra (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:47, 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 merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrax[edit]

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

Similar to Sektor, reception relies solely on listicles and unreliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, article is pure FANDOM material and should be merged or redirected to the list of characters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:51, 27 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 Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Bulk of the content is unreliable listicle after unreliable listicle. The rest appears to be extraordinarily trivial coverage like this and some article that doesn't seem to have a web archive in existence. TTN (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. Lots of trivial mentions, not seeing WP:SIGCOV (ping me if I missed something). But merge, not delete. The passing mentions are valuable for a list of characters or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters per Piotrus' suggestion due to inadequate significant coverage. Haleth (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect due to inadequate coverage. Even without a stand-alone article we can build a consensus for WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:10, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Hawthorne[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Canada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, as a former member of a Canadian national sports team. Vysotsky (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid reason to keep. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valid reason is appearane at 1995 FIFA Woen's World Cup. She is more notable than plenty footbal players from amteur post-war era or plenty insonsequential players from weak leagues which we keep. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Article about footballer who played before the advent of professionalism, and although she represented Canada at international level, I can only find passing mentions in online sources (e.g., [8]). Fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Women who participated at FIFA World Cup are often more notable than football players who playd couple matches for proffestional club at national level which we often keep. Just add more surces to the article and will be ok. Dawid2009 (talk) 09:04, 26 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!} 18:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per @Vysotsky: and @Dawid2009:. Clearly significant figure in Canadian women's and international football. 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) 19:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:BEFORE search only brings the usual database hits. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep rationale by the way. BilletsMauves^€500 11:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Newspapers.com brings up a couple of results, such as this (p2), this, and this. She also has a biography at CanadaSoccer.com, but I don't know if its independent. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's also this from The Province. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - won 11 British Columbia (a province of over 5 million people, bigger than many countries) championships, four Canada national championships, appeared for her country at the World Cup, appointed director of football for the province and awarded their order of merit. If that doesn't make her notable, there's something wrong with our notability criteria. Waggers TALK 15:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of coverage found by BeanieFan11 (talk · contribs) about one of the top women goalkeepers in Canada, which easily establishes notability per WP:BASIC, most of which is now added to the article. One note is that Hawthorne did not actually end up featuring in the 1995 World Cup, but she was part of the squad, and it does not matter because the coverage is there, plus her career achievements in total are outstanding (15 international caps with 7 clean sheets and 3 medals at CONCACAF; 4 national championships and record for all-time clean sheets at the Canada Soccer National Championships; 11 provincial championships with 4 different clubs). Interestingly, Hawthorne had a very active rec career playing for the women's and men's soccer teams with her work colleagues in the Vancouver Police and BC Transit Police, which is covered in newspaper articles where she is featured. One general comment is that reviewers need to be extra careful in searching for coverage about former players whose careers started more than 10 years ago, as Google searches tend not to capture historical coverage, making additional searches necessary in other databases (e.g. ProQuest, Gale, Newspapers.com, etc.). Pinging @GiantSnowman: per his explicit request above. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep', clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:28, 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 no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Government Girls Science and Technical College Potiskum[edit]

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

Search found no independent secondary reliable in-depth coverage. Fails notability. See WP:NSCHOOL. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Nigeria. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable independent sources were provided, so remove the tag please Musaddam Idriss (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 17:14, 20 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!} 18:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, setting aside the fact this offers very little information anyway, the sources provided do not indicate this is a notable institution and I have been unable to find any significant coverage that sufficiently asserts notability. Schools can no longer be assumed as notable and simply existing is not enough. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on "significance", this is the sort of article that needs to be kept and I will explain why. This school is located in the far North, significant, in one of the core Islamic extremist states, [Yobe], highly significant. It has been a successful target for Boko Haram, significant. It is also a girls-only school, highly significant. It was established in the 70s so has history, significant. I am Nigerian and attributing all these to a single school is rare. In the days of NSCHOOLS, this would have been an easy keep because there are sources that show it exists. It is extremely difficult for such schools to receive multiple significant coverage in reliable sources, but evaluating it will tell you it is only a victim of low internet penetration in the region and it is only a matter of time. It is fine if it gets deleted, but left to my interpretation of notability, it should be kept.HandsomeBoy (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I can see three sources on the page that meets the general notability guidelines. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 17:48, 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 GiveWell. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elie Hassenfeld[edit]

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

Sources are about his organisation, not him. Fails notability. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 17:12, 20 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!} 18:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the non-profit he founded. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 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. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sektor[edit]

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

Reception relies solely on listicles and unreliable sources, the trivial coverage of the character in any secondary source of note makes it fail WP:GNG. Purely FANDOM material and should be merged/redirected to the list of characters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:48, 27 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 Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters. Lots of trivial mentions, not seeing WP:SIGCOV (ping me if I missed something). But merge, not delete. The passing mentions are valuable for a list of characters or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters per Piotrus' suggestion due to inadequate significant coverage. Haleth (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as the growing consensus. Agree the coverage is trivial and we can find an WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:09, 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 keep. WP:SNOWing in Antarctica. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Stark (umpire)[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. A single source which includes direct quotes from the subject. No doubt an excellent sports woman but this doesn't come close to Wikipedia notability and searches don't help, even when you get past the Scottish apostolic prophet . Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This seems like a WP:BEFORE failure. A quick click on the find sources links above shows plenty of coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toddst1. See https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/i-literally-cried-teen-field-umpire-the-youngest-ever-at-afl-s-top-level-20220826-p5bd49.html and https://thewest.com.au/sport/the-aflnt-umpires-have-unearthed-a-young-gem-with-ambitions-to-reach-the-top-ng-3607c1140c437f6a9a93343060a0ac5c. pburka (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - of these two quoted sources, the first is already used in the article and is not robustly independent since it quotes the subject herself. The second is behind a paywall and the text would need to be copied here for evaluation. However, that still falls a long way short of at least three reliable and independent sources required. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm baffled by the claim that a source isn't independent if the author interviewed the subject. Surely that's how good journalism is conducted. It's independent because Ms Stark doesn't own The Age or have control over its content. I'm equally baffled by the claim that we need three sources. Multiple sources (i.e. two) are sufficient. Regardless, there are more quality sources in the Google News results. pburka (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's an interview designed to bring out the best in the subject. It isn't impartial. The source is fine, but it is very weak in establishing notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That first source doesn't read like an interview to me. It reads like an article which contains content from an interview with the subject. Protonk (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC - ‘I literally cried’: Teen field umpire the youngest ever at AFL’s top level (Brisbane Times, Aug. 27, 2022/ Sydney Morning Herald) includes secondary context from an independent and reliable source, even though she is quoted in the context of the reporting focused on her, e.g. "At just 16 years old, Emma Stark has become the youngest field umpire to officiate at the highest level of the AFL after presiding over the Essendon v Hawthorn AFLW game on Saturday night." [...] Stark started umpiring when she was 13 [...] Two years later she became the youngest female field umpire to officiate a 2021 men’s premier league match [...] She entered the women’s league with many accolades already to her name" etc. Also, this is subscription-blocked for me, but the preview says: "Emma Stark has impressed as a player and umpire in her chosen sport of Australian football." (The AFLNT umpires have unearthed a young gem with ambitions to reach the top, The West Australian, 8 February 2021). I am also unable to access NT News coverage, but there appears to be coverage focused on her sports career since 2021, e.g. "Youngest NTFL Premier League field umpire in history" Oct 18, 2021, "Junior award winners announced", Mar 8, 2021, "Revealed: The 2021-22 Women’s Rising Star nominees" Mar 3, 2022. Beccaynr (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr and pburka. A WP:BEFORE failure where the subject was a woman. Curious how often that happens. Protonk (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notablity establishing sources mentioned above. Also, the fact that a source is behind a paywall (or limited access or even not online) doesn't make it less acceptable. If that was the case we'd have to delete millions of articles. --SuperJew (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the coverage in The Age, The West and NT News satisfies GNG. Sources aren't disqualified for notability purposes merely because they're paywalled or contain direct quotes from the subject. – Teratix ₵ 02:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons discussed by multiple editors. Storm machine (talk) 05:56, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jevick Macfarlane[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
de.wikipedia seems to have a really detailed biography on him: [9]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
De.wiki does have a moderate-length biography on him but when I checked, the sources were mostly 404 errors with a few stats-only databases. I was not able to find anything I thought was a suitable source for a biography with my own online searches. Delete.—S Marshall T/C 09:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:44, 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) 21:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Germal Valcin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reason. MisterWizzy (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the ProQuest hits seem like they might have SIGCOV but upon accessing the articles, all mentions are trivial Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Berkay Çatak[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

So, almost a year has passed since the final nomination, which ended without a consensus due to the lack of participants, I think it's time take a look at this again. A WP:BEFORE shows that there hasn't been any coverage about him nor the company he founded in the past year, so this will be pretty much a repeat of before.

Ref 1 is a "Kimdir?" source from a not-so-good looking website (in terms of reliability). There is clear consensus on trwiki that "Kimdir?"s can't be used to establish notability anyway, regardless of publisher, due to their lack of editorial oversight.

Ref 2 is from a reliable and well known place: Hürriyet. However, it's about a problem with Google and includes a statement of Çatak about the probable cause, which is great and all but isn't independent not significant coverage about Çatak himself.

I know Daily Sabah of Ref 3 is tagged as unreliable at WP:RSPS, but it's definitely reliable for non-controversial stuff, which this source is. Though content-wise, it is similar to Ref 2, only statements of the subject, and can't be used to establish notability.

Ref 4 is pretty much the same: reliable, but only includes statements of the subject. Isn't independent nor SIGCOV.

Ref 5 is reliable, but it's exclusively about Gören Duyan. I don't see much about Çatak himself. He is being introduced as the "16-year-old who created it" and includes his statements on how he made it, but there isn't SIGCOV about him. Since notability is not inherited, this source also doesn't provide anything towards the GNG.

Ref 6 is exactly the same source, copied word by word, so it can't be treated as a different source (and probably should be removed instead).

Ref 7 is an interview uploaded to YouTube. Not independent.

Ref 8 is eh. Briefly introduces him and his projects, then it's full his statements which comprises the majority of the source. I think the introduction can be borderline considered as significant coverage.

Ref 9 is similar to Ref 5 in terms of content. This time it's a different project, though. In this source, he is only introduced as a "19-year-old entrpreneur", with the rest being fully his statements. No SIGCOV whatsoever.

WebTekno of Ref 10 is deprecated on the Turkish Wikipedia. In fact, the first to be done so.

Ref 11 includes a mention of Gören Duyan but no mention of Çatak at all. Isn't SIGCOV.

There is only one source that passes the criteria to establish notability. With this is mind, the subject of the article fails the general notability guideline, and should be deleted. ~Styyx^Talk? 17:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Turkey. ~Styyx^Talk? 17:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per sources discussed above, lack of GNG Oaktree b (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's pretty obvious that it fails WP:GNG. The detailed explanation by Styyx further reaffirms it. Keivan.f^Talk 02:16, 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 owing to insufficient coverage. Adequate reason to redirect to Los Angeles & San Pedro Railroad has not been provided. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clement Junction, California[edit]

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

This seems to be another example of a railroad junction mislabeled by GNIS as a populated place and extrapolated into a community by an overzealous editor. When we strip the general background information about the railroads and namesake railroad man, the only thing this article tells us is that this is where three railroads came together. None of the sources (aside from Hometown Locator) speak of a community, and newspaper sources about a wreck describe the location as "at Alameda and twenty-first street" [10] and "inside the city limits" (of Los Angeles) [11], descriptions that would not be used if this was a recognized community. –dlthewave ☎ 17:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and California. –dlthewave ☎ 17:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename>>Clement Junction (California). Djflem (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change the fact that the location is non-notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ with Vernon city, as it is not a place in its own right, per nom. and per my research which suggests that an area of Vernon City, LA is called Clement Junction[12]. This is not on Google maps and the labelling of a railway junction on some maps does not make it a legally recognised place - yet it falls within a possible definition of a populated place withouut legal recognition. Such can be taken on a case by case basis per WP:GEOLAND. In this case, however, the location is Vernon City. WP:GEOLAND allows that non legally recognised places can be considered notable so that a place that is not otherwise covered may be considered notable for an article. In this case the main article is Vernon city. For that reason, Merge with Vernon City makes sense considering there is a small amount of mergeable content. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy, are you familiar with WP:GNIS? A large number of locations (including railroad junctions) are mislabeled as "populated places" in the GNIS database, and many directory-style websites simply copied those listings and combined them with other publicly-available data. The source in the article, Hometownlocator, is notorious for this, and it appears that your source similarly lists streets near the junction with no verification of a distinct populated place with that name. In fact it seems that the only sources that mention this as a populated place are ones that scraped their data from GNIS. –dlthewave ☎ 19:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - and yes, on that basis then, this becomes ~~Delete~~ Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See below, where I agree that the new direction that asserts this is about the railroad allows a redirect and merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a railroad junction with a small rail yard (8 tracks) in the middle of an industrial area of L.A. It is not and almost certainly never was a populated place and the content in the article is almost entirely irrelevant to the purported subject. It's possible the railroad facilities (past and/or present) here could be notable, but that would not be under this name and confers no notability to the junction itself. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The rail facilities are covered at Redondo Junction, California which eliminates any possibility this article is notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this may not necessarily be a significant “populated place” today, if you read the text of the entry you will see why it was quite significant in the early history of the development of railroad infrastructure, freight, and passenger service in the nineteenth and much of the twentieth century. It was the completion of the First Transcontinental Railroad in 1869 and its expansion down to Southern California from the San Francisco Bay Area in the decades immediately following which made this junction an important element in enabling the development of the economy of Los Angeles as well as intercity passenger service to and from the city. The influence of railroads and their influence on every element of the state’s economy and growth was second to none as it connected two thirds of the nation’s Pacific coast to the remaining states and territories located East of California-Oregon-Washington. Rails cut te time it took to mark a journey from the East Coast from as much as 4 to 6 months by sailing ship around Aouth America and Cape Horn to 4 to 6 days via rail. It was key junctions like this one that were essential to making that whole integrated system work and therefore its history deserves to be remembered, recognized and respected. Centpacrr (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, but doesn't demonstrate that the article meets WP:GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have now rewritten the lede and body to reflect the historic importance of the establishment of this key rail junction in 1876 to provide the first direct rail access for the Port of Los Angeles (and all of Southern California) to the US transcontinental rail network and have removed all references to Clement Junction as a “populated place” which should cure what appears to have been the sole issue raised about this entry which has otherwise existed on Wikipedia without objection for 14 years. Centpacrr (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It still doesn't meet GNG, and the amount of time an article has existed means nothing other than nobody has noticed it didn't meet GNG until now. If you'd like to see what a notable railroad facility's article looks like, consider an article like Cedar Hill Yard, which has many references covering it in significant detail, which is not the case with this article. If this junction cannot be shown to meet GNG, it will be deleted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Centpacrr:I think the story may be in Los Angeles & San Pedro Railroad, which is definitely a redirect/merge target (after renaming for to convention for junctions). Djflem (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that “notability” is a completely subjective judgement. While Clement Junction may not be especially “notable” for what it is now, it certainly is for the major historical impact it had on the development of Los Angeles as a major economic engine for the nation at the time of its establishment in 1876 to provide the first means of connecting the Port of Los Angeles as a second major port in the state to the still young (opened in May,1869) first transcontinental rail system (via the “Pacific Railroad”) and thereby the entire country while also revealing the identity of the key figure (engineer Lewis M. Clement) in the design and construction of both the Ogden, UT to San Francisco (1862-69) and San Francisco to Los Angeles (1869-76) grades of the Central Pacific Railroad whose name that both the junction and the surrounding 1.8 sqmi section of Los Angeles that is the home to almost 17,000 people still carry after 153 years. Centpacrr (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is bound to be some subjectivity in evaluation of notability, but the guidelines are designed to be objective. The key consideration is whether there is sufficient coverage in WP:RS to allow an encylopaedic article to be written on the subject. Sometimes things may not really be notable for their own page but they are part of a bigger story, which is why User:Djflem suggests a redirect andmerge to a location where sourced material about this junction can be included in a page talking about the fuller story of th erailroad.

My delete !vote was based on the erroneous page here that claimed this was a populated place. It is not, so that delete !vote was right, however, on the basis you have now accepted this is a part of a railroad story, I am happy with redirect/merge to Los Angeles & San Pedro Railroad where your work can be preserved and curated into an article that places it in the context it deserves. I will strike my delete above. But just to be clear, I do not see any evidence of significant coverage for an article in its own right, and nor did I find any when I carried out searches on this subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While this is certainly not the most important entry on he Wikipedia project, it is also not capricious either as provides historical perspective to an important element in the development of California’s transportation infrastructure associated exclusively with this junction established 153 years ago as the first connection by rail of the Port of Los Angeles to the rest of the nation. Centpacrr (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What sources say that? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles require citations that provide significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. You don't seem to understand that the Wikipedia concept of notability is different than the dictionary definition. You're not going to persuade anyone like this. Plenty of things from a long time ago are still notable in the Wikipedia sense, but this isn't. You have not provided even a single example of significant coverage of this location, and therefore I stand by my delete vote. Your arguments are heavy on emotion and totally lacking in substance, I'm afraid. Plenty of past and present railroad locations are notable, but again, that is shown through significant coverage in reliable independent sources and you've failed to identify any. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources do not provide significant coverage needed to establish notability. The Los Angeles & San Pedro Railroad is historic, but I see no evidence that this mere junction should be described that way, much less in its own article. Reywas92^Talk 14:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)\[reply]

Whatever the subjective level of “notability”, there are apparently still those in the community who find value in this 14-year old entry as it has been visited and viewed almost 1,900 times in the last 12 months. Centpacrr (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear where you got that. It got a mere 181 views in the year before it was nominated (roughly Special:Random level) (not that pageviews – and certainly not time it's languished with false info calling it a community – are any basis to keep whatsoever anyway). Not a word in the sources actually talks about the junction, so it should be deleted, or you can transfer some of it to the main railroad article. Reywas92^Talk 19:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they had the Agent set to All instead of User, so it was picking up all of the bots and search engine crawlers. –dlthewave ☎ 21:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to edit Wikipedia, you're going to have to be bound by its policies and guidelines. Quite frankly, nobody cares how attached you are to the article. If you think it's so important, you're more than welcome to start your own website about it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The number comes from “Pageview Analysis” [13] which for the period from Jan., 2021 to July, 2022, the page had 1,866 views and averaged 98 views per month. Centpacrr (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are reaching levels of WP:IDHT I didn't even think were possible. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:57, 3 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Dolgorukova[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABLE. All citations are to Russian exhibiton catalogues, or reports of exhibitions in no -notable Russian publications.. Smerus (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article appears to be heavily promotional ~~autobiography. It was created by, heavily edited by, and images uploaded by Юлия Долгорукова which translates to the name of the artist.~~ I'm still checking into the sourcing, however an online search revealed nothing that could substantiate the claims that shes in all those museum collections. Whenever I see an artist's article (other than perhaps an "old master" or very well known modern/contemporary artist) with a huge image gallery, it's usually a hint that it's just a promotional advertorial work, just my two cents. Will !vote when I look into sourcing more thouroughly. Netherzone (talk) 18:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment tried the Latin script spelling of her name, not much of anything comes up. Might be more Russian sources, leaning delete at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 01:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, her Russian WP aritlce [14] has lots of sources, but I don't read Russian, so I can't tell if these are reliable sources or not. What we need is an editor who is fluent to help out. Netherzone (talk) 03:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it is any help I read Russian and imo none of these sources meet WP standards of reliability (independent assessment). The fact that there are no non-Russian sources speaks for itself.--Smerus (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the source review my Smerus. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Hello, dear sirs! I want to point out the nominator's mistakes. Firstly, there is information in English, you can read that Julia Dolgorukova is the first modern famous Russian artist who became the prototype of the main character of a feature film[15]. Secondly, there are articles about it in other languages, for example, in Finnish[16]. Thirdly, there is a catalog of the famous exhibition in English, where it is listed among the participants[17]. Fourth, the official newspaper of the Ministry of Culture of Russia "CULTURE" wrote about it in 1995[18]. Fifth, there are official documents from museums that her paintings are in these museums, for example:[19]. Sixth, the official portal of the Ministry of Culture of Russia currently reports on her exhibitions:[20][21]. In the Russian wikipedia, this article was nominated for deletion 11 years ago, but following the discussion it was abandoned. A leading art expert from St. Petersburg took part in the discussion. Олег Черкасский (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Smerus, if you have the time to check the accuracy my analysis of the sources presented above by @Олег Черкасский, that would be appreciated (I used machine translation). The "feature film" reference on the "International Records Agency" website appears to be user-submitted content - there are links on the main page that state that anyone can "apply" to set a record, and even "invite a judge".[22]. This does not seem like a reliable source since anyone can apply; therefore not independent. The Finnish article is a review of a group show of three artists, which contains four sentences on Dolgoukova's work, it includes a photo of her with one of her paintings - it is independent, but is not in-depth coverage, - we would need more than that.[23] The "'famous exhibition' at 10 Gogolevsky Blvd" citation is simply a name check in a long list of participants in a group show with dozens of artists - not SIGCOV. Re: the Ministry of Culture newspaper, I can't seem to find any mention on her, but perhaps others can.[24], the "Official portal of the MoC" citations consist of two press releases, that specifically state The administration of the Kultura.RF portal is not responsible for the material provided, as well as for the actions of the Organizer and / or other persons acting on his behalf and on his behalf or on his own behalf, but on behalf of the Organizer, including in connection with the implementation tickets by such persons, as well as for the organization, holding and maintenance of the Event. which means it is a user-or-PR submitted press release.[25][26]. I'm not sure of what to make of this: [27] whether it's a shipping receipt or a bill of sale, or? At this time I am leaning towards delete, as none of the above constitutes significant coverage in independent sources. I performed a BEFORE using three spellings of her name, Julia Dolgorukova, Юлия Долгорукова, and Yulia Dolgorukova, on Google, JSTOR, WP Library and ProQuest, and could not find the kind of coverage one would expect a "famous artist" to have. The article is extremely promotional WP:PROMO, quite possibly self-promotional and it now has CITE OVERKILL. Not sure if the awards are notable, but my guess is they are not. I'll continue to hold off on !voting for now. Netherzone (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Finnish article №2:[28], Artikles in magazin "NEW TIMES" [29]. "...anyone can "apply" to set a record..." - Try it! This is the Russian equivalent of the Guinness World Records. "юююsimply a name check in a long list of participants..." - These are the most famous Russian nonconformist artists of 80-90. Kultura newspaper - the main newspaper about culture in Russia. An article in this newspaper is proof of the person's significance. Only state and municipal cultural institutions have the right to publish on the portal "Culture". Private individuals and PR do not have access to this portal. The articles were published by the largest state concert institution in Moscow "Mosconcert" and the Cultural Center "Uspenskoe" in the most prestigious area of the Moscow region[30][31]. [32] This is a document of acceptance for permanent storage of a painting by Yulia Dolgorukova in the Kostroma Regional Museum of Fine Arts 18.06.1994 [33]. I have personally seen several such documents [34][35][36]. The painting "Red House" was bought for the museum by the administration of the city of Kostroma for 2,150.000 rubles[37]. Subsequently, this work was stolen from the museum and Julia Dolgorukova presented her painting "Still Life with a yellow pear" to this museum. Олег Черкасский (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain how it is that you have access to the artist's personal web server, their financial records, news clippings, etc.?[dolgorukova.h1n.ru] You are obviously connected to the artist in a significant way, please disclose the connection. Thank you in advance, Netherzone (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The connection is very simple: I have been living in Moscow since 1987. Since that time I have been visiting exhibitions of contemporary artists. Julia Dolgorukova is the brightest artist, I began to follow her work. I was in New York in 1994 and some expat artists knew about it. For example, Ernst Neizvestny was friends with her father. I also personally knew Eduard Drobitsky, Boris Bich and many artists of this circle. The article about Julia Dolgorukova is my first experience on wikipedia, so I studied the person very carefully. And, since I work in the IT field, it is not difficult for me to find information. Now I have created a program that calculates the investment attractiveness of paintings by contemporary artists. That's why I chose several artists, including Julia, to test my program. She lives in Turkey, and I also know that her father is Estonian and her mother is Latvian. But I can't write this in the article, because it's not written anywhere on the Internet. And I would be very interested to learn about contemporary artists who have become prototypes of the main characters of films. Maybe there are a lot of them? Олег Черкасский (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that you are connected to the artist. You have access to her financial records, photographic documentation, have access to her web-server dolgorukova.h1n.ru and have created a program to calculate the investment attractiveness of her paintings it appears that you have a conflict of interest WP:COI, and should stop editing the article directly and instead use the edit request feature, and follow the instructions for declaration described in the COI link provided. You should also carefully read WP:UPE as it seems that you have a financial stake in her career. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kultura newspaper - the main newspaper about culture in Russia. An article in this newspaper is proof of the person's significance. 1995!Олег Черкасский (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are only two other famous contemporary artists in the world who have become prototypes of the main characters of feature films: these are Gerhard Richter and Margaret Keane.Олег Черкасский (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:PROMO, article is unambigous promotion; advertorial content. Should notability be established, the article should be WP:TNT'd. Netherzone (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article creator has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Netherzone (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete then, paid promotion is a no-no here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
cf by the way Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aida Hanemayer (Lisenkova) (2nd nomination), also created by same editor, and restored by that editor without discussion after a deletion an at previous AfD discussion.--Smerus (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMO I don't read Russian, but have reviewed the comments above and tried to find RS on the internet, which I could not find. Loooking at the author's contribution history it does look like this is a violation of COI. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:14, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia Central Junction, West Virginia[edit]

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

Railroad junction mislabeled as a community. Newspapers only mention the name in the context of railroad operations, and there's not enough coverage to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 16:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and West Virginia. –dlthewave ☎ 16:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a railroad junction and railroad yard, not a community. And the railroad yard is more likely to be notable than the location itself. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I have looked and can only find evidence that it is a railroad yard, also per User:Trainsandotherthings. This is not a place, and there is nothing here to merge anywhere. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and due to WP:GEOLAND. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:19, 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. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 16:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guy George[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find any sources to support notability. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 22:38, 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. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 16:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Nestor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:43, 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 keep per WP:SNOW. Overwhelming consensus that subject passes WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Hackett[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) 15:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an international player with 300 appearances in the English football league. If he gets deleted, then a lot of other articles are going to fail the same criteria.

Comment. This is not a valid criteria anymore. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone's gonna be busy then ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG with multiple pieces of SIGCOV, see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, in addition to several others from the Evening Post. I question whether the nominator is actually doing a BEFORE search with these mass nominations. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources by BeanieFan11.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable as shown by sources above, very poor nomination indeed. Giant Snowman 09:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per newspaper sources shown by BeanieFan Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pretty clear from the provided sources that the subject doesn't come afoul of either WP:GNG nor WP:SIGCOV. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article about former football player and manager with long career in the Football League that appears to receive SIGCOV and passes GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per everything above. Besides the sources BeanieFan11 found, I found 8, 9, and 10 among many many other sources. Clearly significant figure in Saint Lucian football with an extensive pro career. 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) 15:08, 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. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 14:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muqadas Farooq Awan[edit]

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

OK, I don't read Urdu so cant see some of the references, but neither thos I can see or anythig in the article itself suggest notability...just a journalist doing their job , with the run-of-the-mill cover that generates TheLongTone (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on Google Translate, the first source is a tag search for articles she wrote and the other two are articles she directly wrote. The only new source proffered by IamNasirZaman (talk · contribs) on this AfD's talk page is a cite to Twitter, which is worthless for notability at any rate (no editorial oversight). As a precaution, I'm going to run this thru a copyvio checker (as two drafts Iam has written had plagiarised content), but as far as I can determine this doesn't establish notability in the first place and should be deleted as a result. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 17:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All references are primary sources. Gusfriend (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established. Articles written by the subject do not count towards notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: . I am just letting you know that I declined the deletion of Orkhan Mammadov, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This is just not spammy. It's a short bio which is encylopedic, and then a short career history. He may well not be notable, but there's credible indication as president of the AZ Futsal assoc. Needs to go to

https://www.urdupoint.com/news/team/muqadas-farooq.html

Hello, I would like help understanding why my sources are not reliable. These sources are news papers and the subject of my Wikipedia page is focus of all the articles used. Other sources used were direct links to his repertoire. Any advice and assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. IamNasirZaman (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This vote has been copied from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Muqadas Farooq Awan. I reserve making any judgement on this AFD. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained why these sources are unusable in my delete argument. Repeating the same argument ad nauseam is not a winner at AfD. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 19:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Islam. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block the creator as a SOA. This is nothing more than exaggerated vanity spam sourced to the usual suspects engaging in paid pr without identifying it (aka blackhat SEO) Also I'm pretty sure we've had this exact discussion before. PICKLEDICAE🥒 18:04, 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. ✗plicit 13:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mujammau English Medium Senior Secondary School[edit]

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

I was not able to find the multiple independent and reliable sources required for a passing of WP:NORG. All that I could find were database listings, social media pages and the school's own website, none of which demonstrate notability for a school. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedily, ideally). I very nearly AfD'ed this myself until I saw that it's very recently been deleted as promotional and the current version seems like it is identical or barely dissimilar. There is nothing here to suggest this is a notable institution. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Bungle. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:20, 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 keep. No need to keep this going per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 04:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Buddhism[edit]

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

Criticism articles are generally deprecated, and are often POV forks. In this case 90% of the article has been removed, leaving a stub that implies that the only criticism of Buddhism is Nietsche's opinions. That is grossly misleading.

Attempts to restore the deleted content and then improve it have not gained consensus. MrDemeanour (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Buddhism. ––FormalDude talk 11:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG as well discussed topic in itself, that receives significant coverage in reliable sources.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] From the available sources, sections on criticism related to violence and warfare, and the treatment of women would seem appropriate.

References

^ John Taber (2004). A Hindu Critique of Buddhist Epistemology. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781134307333.
^ Rita M. Gross. Buddhism After Patriarchy; A Feminist History, Analysis, and Reconstruction of Buddhism. State University of New York Press. ISBN 9781438405131.
^ Bernard Faure (1994). The Rhetoric of Immediacy; A Cultural Critique of Chan/Zen Buddhism. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691029634.
^ Michael K. Jerryson (2018). If You Meet the Buddha on the Road; Buddhism, Politics, and Violence. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190683566.
^ Mark Juergensmeyer; Michael Jerryson (2010). Buddhist Warfare. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195394832.
^ Brian Daizen Victoria (2006). Zen at War. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 9781461647478.

SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 13:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep justification is wrong. I have yet to not find a "Criticism of X" article where X is a religion. We have Criticism of Jainism, even. Oh, I don't see a criticism of Shintoism, but pretty much everything else. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SailingInABathTub and Jclemens passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but stubbify even further by removing the "Nihilism" section. Nietzsche's views on Buddhism are complex (see Buddhism in the West#In Europe) and are not adequately represented here – and as the nom says, the retaining of this single section in an otherwise empty article gives severely undue emphasis to a minority opinion. However, I oppose deletion because the article title is a very likely search term, and readers looking for information on this topic are better served by a stub (with a list of links for further reading) than by a "This page does not exist" notice. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Obviously passes WP:GNG. The nominator hasn't demonstrated a reasonable need to delete the article. It certainly is a noteworthy subject. (the content of the article does not determine the notability of an article, see WP:ARTN; the subject is of course notable). --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 20:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are issues with the content of the article, but the concept of the article itself is notable and does have sources that show notability per WP:GNG. Deletion is not an alternative to cleanup, and while yes the article needs work (an understatement), it is not at WP:TNT levels of criticality. The nom did make a comment that "Criticism of X" articles are generally depreciated, and while there is some truth to the fact that Criticism articles should generally be avoided, WP:CRITS specifically points out that major worldview concepts like religions are a general exception to that, which is further explained in Wikipedia:Criticism#Philosophy, religion, or politics. - Aoidh (talk) 21:32, 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 13:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lalit Hari Sugar Factory Stadium[edit]

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

The article seems to not have significant coverage. According to WP:NSTADIUM, coverage is needed, and there is no inherent notability just because a few matches have been played. Ranji Trophy matches cannot even be used to determine notability for players as per WP:OFFCRIC. Upon a WP:BEFORE search, I found one TOI source, but it looks like a passing mention, which says it might hold a match. Furthermore, the blocked article creator has had many other similar articles deleted. Thanks, Kpddg ^(talk) 11:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Kpddg ^(talk) 11:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A great name for a stadium, but I'm only seeing database sourcing really, not really enough for a GNG pass. Not sure it's held any notable enough events for a pass that way either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:01, 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 13:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kalki Avatar Aur Muhammad Saheb[edit]

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

Article created by a sock. It still fails WP:NBOOK. Sources either make passing mention or they don't even mention at all.

See the last AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book) (3rd nomination). Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 11:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Islam, and Hinduism. Shellwood (talk) 11:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Couldn't find any independent reviews. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 04:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous afd and per above. Does not meet notability. Even the article is erroneous lists Rabi'_al-Awwal as the first month of the lunar calendar, when in fact it is the third month of the lunar calendar. Also I wonder if WP:G4 applies here. KSAWikipedian (talk) 07:59, 3 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Handschuhmacher[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV, only a database source, same on other language wikis. Was eliminated in the heats at the single Olympics he took part in. starship .paint (exalt) 06:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Germany. starship .paint (exalt) 07:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of WP:GNG either. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Also plainly fails WP:SPORTBASIC: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." (bold, italics added) Not mentioned at Swimming at the 1928 Summer Olympics so redirect is inapt. Cbl62 (talk) 18:30, 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 Already deleted by User:Bbb23 per WP:G5. -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of deputy chief ministers of Mizoram[edit]

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

As with other pages AfDed that were created by the same user (List of deputy chief ministers of Arunachal Pradesh, List of deputy chief ministers of Assam), it's a list of one person with the subject of the page having its article already. Liliana ^(UwU) 06:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Mizoram. Liliana ^(UwU) 06:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that the topic is , in any sense, notable. The content, even if it were sourced, could easily be accommodated in pre-existing articles without any loss of encyclopaedic value. No sources of any significance other than to confirm the name of a minister. Fails WP:GNG by a very wide margin Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:36, 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 merge to 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No Vote To BJP[edit]

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

This does not appear to be an event that is independently notable of the 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election whatsoever. As such, this article should be blanked-and-redirected to 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:51, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure but based on coverage like this, this and this which is specific to the campaign, I would lean toward keep.Chagropango (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge briefly to 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election. There are indeed sources about this, but notability isn't a guarantee of a stand-alone page: in this case, discussing the movement in the main election article, which contains relevant information about broader themes in the campaign, would provide "more complete context" to readers. (A merge rather than a redirect is needed since there's currently no "No Vote to BJP"-related content in the election article.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge briefly to 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election. Not every single slogan is notable. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KSAWikipedian (talk) 06:42, 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 keep per WP:CSK#4. ✗plicit 14:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ekkaphong Jongkesakorn[edit]

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

~~No reliable sources found. Imperfect Boy (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Beccaynr (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Thailand. Imperfect Boy (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google news search for the Thai name [38] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Disruptive nomination. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:49, 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 speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G12 as a blatent copyright violation. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minjar Mela[edit]

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

Failed as a draft, at Draft:Minjar Mela, and fails WP:IS and WP:GNG. JML1148 (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This was sent to draft, got rejected, so they waited four hours to move it to mainspace, then they added some material that looks like it was a copyvio. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Diannaa removed copyvio content, and they then re-added it. I've removed it for the second time now. They also added completely unsourced content, as well. JML1148 (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, India, and Himachal Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 08:13, 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!} 05:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atesh Salih[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Assyrtiko (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Turkey. Assyrtiko (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG.--Kadı Message 17:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another AfD is taking place on Turkish Wikipedia simultaneously, and similar to this one, the conclusion appears to be that the subject fails WP:GNG. Keivan.f^Talk 02:19, 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 Billy Crawford#Big City Tour Live (2005). (non-admin closure) —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Big City Tour 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.

The only news articles that I got for the album [39] [40] tells us that Mr. Crawford found a new dancer friend while making the album. While that is nice and all, it doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards.

Plausible WP:ATD would be to redirect to Billy_Crawford#Albums. Lenticel ^(talk) 04:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 04:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Billy_Crawford#Big_City_Tour_Live_(2005) per nom. QuietHere (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above; nothing suggests notability & the article barely expands whats there.TheLongTone (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Billy Crawford#Big City Tour Live (2005). SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Billy Crawford#Big City Tour Live (2005). There does not appear to be enough significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources to justify this having its own article, but a valid redirect exists so this would be helpful for any readers who many be looking for information on this subject matter. Aoba47 (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Billy Crawford#Big City Tour Live (2005) per above. Although the nom suggested to redirect on Billy Crawford#Albums, I think the best ATD option might be the aforementioned page; fails WP:NALBUM. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Billy Crawford#Big City Tour Live (2005). Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond the sources presented by nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:28, 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!} 05:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Justin M. Taylor[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL. County level politician in a smallish county of Florida. Coverage is routine and local. MB 04:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Florida. MB 04:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County commission is not a level of office that guarantees inclusion in Wikipedia in and of itself — the lowest level of political office that is "inherently" notable is the state legislature, while politicians at the county commission level get articles only if either (a) they have some other notability claim that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) they can show and source credible evidence that they're significantly more notable than most other county commissioners. But this is referenced entirely to the run of the mill local coverage that every county commissioner in every county could always show, which isn't sufficient as it doesn't establish a reason why he would be more special than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Bearcat. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 18:59, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Valcin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Three Google News hits: [41], [42] and [43] are all trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:19, 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!} 05:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zacherinus Simon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources such as [44] are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to indicate notability. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 23:21, 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!} 05:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lester Joseph[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources such as [45] and [46] are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:18, 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 Draftify.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Washington University of Science and Technology[edit]

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

It was created by a user who was blocked indefinitely because their username was promotional of the page itself. Looking at the history reveals that the majority of the information added to the page at one point was due to promotional users as well. A News search shows 1 result which isn't in English. There's a scholar result but it references "University of Washington" and "University of Science and Technology of China", not "Washington University of Science and Technology." NYT has never written about it. JStor has also never had any articles about or from them. Wozal (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Virginia. Wozal (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and I can actually find no coverage at all. Chagropango (talk) 06:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft for possible improvement. If it is in fact an accredited degree-granting institution of higher learning, then sources should be discoverable. BD2412 T 01:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, its name was just changed from "IGlobal University", are there any sources found referencing this name?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are a few sources for IGlobal University:

Some of the above are passing mentions or a listing on a site where it appears the college submitted information, so not independent. There may be other sources for this school, but perhaps not in English. There are many sources about a "harmony search algorithm" by Prof. Zong Woo Geem of iGlobal University, who may be notable, but so far there do not appear to be enough RS in English to meet the requirements of SIGCOV, to pass GNG.~~WP:NORG, which is the guideline for institutions that are for-profit.~~ Perhaps an editor with Bangladeshi linguist skills will be able to find more thorough sourcing? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Send to draft This article is incomplete and there is a lot of material that would need to be added since the school just changed its name. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:35, 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 no consensus. Very low participation and relisted repeatedly, but all other participants are against the nominator's proposed content deletion. However, they disagree on where the content should be: here or the Northwestern article? (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert R. McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science[edit]

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

Lacking outside references. Notability? Wiseoleman17 (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Not especially notable. Lacks outside references--Wiseoleman17 (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every major American university has separate Wikipedia pages for its individual colleges and schools. In what way is this one not notable? Hawthorneabendsen (talk) 15:10, 24 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!} 02:21, 20 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!} 01:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep this article. The school is a reputable engineering school. There are plenty of references to research and faculty in the Chicago Tribune. Someone just needs to add them. I have added two. PMCH2 (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Northwestern Andre🚐 17:42, 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 redirect to Northwestern University. If sources are provided which show something more than the fact that the institution exists, the article may be restored. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences[edit]

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

Lacks secondary references, Not notable on its own Wiseoleman17 (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Not especially notable. Lacks outside references--Wiseoleman17 (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrator note: Duplicate !vote by the nominator. ✗plicit 01:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Northwestern. Andre🚐 23:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:56, 20 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!} 01:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (albeit weakly), doing a search on newspapers.com brings up many results for this institution, but I haven't extensively assessed them all to feel confident making a keep !vote with conviction. What I see suggests that there is a chance we could demonstrate sufficient notability, which is perhaps not too surprising for a 170+ year old institution. At worst, a redirect to the university article could be implemented until such a time that citations are incorporated. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:18, 3 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 Taylor & Francis. No consensus for outright deletion, whereas redirecting is a credible alternative. Insufficient support for merging, though anything viable could be transferred from article history. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heldref Publications[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. The only reference in the article is not independent of the subject. SL93 (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, and Washington, D.C.. SL93 (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep old publisher effectively purchased by T&F. Could be merged at T&F, but it's better as a standalone article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Taylor & Francis Andre🚐 00:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Taylor & Francis as per WP:ATD. There doesn't appear to be any refs/sources that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notabilty HighKing⁺⁺ 19:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, it looks like a new source has been added by it looks like the trend is to Redirect this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 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 01:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Android 14 (operating system)[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL. Android 14 is not announced yet. —Hajoon0102 💬 00:58, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Hajoon0102 💬 04:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the past consensus involving iOS versions getting articles the minute the current one releases even as we don't know their actual name. Wait till it at least gets a beta; we don't need this article right now. Nate • (chatter) 01:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of substance has been said of it right now beyond the fact that it will eventually exist. Uhai (talk · contribs) 05:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The current info is also WP:HOAX in the article. No information has been provided about 14. – The Grid (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Per WP:CRYSTAL, this is way too early. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing of note in here as of yet. Mr.weedle (talk) 06:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it possible that the closing admin can check Android 14? The user who made the subject article also made that article which redirects to a Dragonball Z film. – The Grid (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. – The Grid (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Andre🚐 17:46, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Şamil Oymak[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. The article has also been deleted twice on Turkish Wikipedia, for the very same reason. Keivan.f^Talk 01:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:44, 20 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!} 01:18, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Face (Clyde Minaret)[edit]

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

Similarly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Ridge (Wolf's Head), which was just closed as delete, this climbing route is not independently notable from Clyde Minaret, which it is on. Does not meet WP:GNG and content should be deleted or merged. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Geography, and California. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see several articles on Fifty Classic Climbs of North America that have no content beyond noting their existence and inclusion in this book. None of them establish notability independent from the mountains themselves. Reywas92^Talk 15:04, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast Face (Pingora)[edit]

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

Similarly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Ridge (Wolf's Head), which was just closed as delete, this climbing route is not independently notable from Pingora Peak, which it is on. Does not meet WP:GNG and content should be deleted or merged. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:08, 27 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see several articles on Fifty Classic Climbs of North America that have no content beyond noting their existence and inclusion in this book. None of them establish notability independent from the mountains themselves. Reywas92^Talk 15:06, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

East Buttress (Middle Cathedral)[edit]

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

Similarly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Ridge (Wolf's Head), which was just closed as delete, this climbing route is not independently notable from Middle Cathedral Rock, which it is on. Does not meet WP:GNG and content should be deleted or merged. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Geography, and California. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see several articles on Fifty Classic Climbs of North America that have no content beyond noting their existence and inclusion in this book. None of them establish notability independent from the mountains themselves. Reywas92^Talk 15:06, 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.