< August 04	August 06 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hiveworks Comics[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. Most of the sources are primary, tangential mentions, or random listicles. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: mentions by many newspaper--Wpcpey (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of lack of sources supporting notability of subject. Some forensics:

We have three works by college students -one about "Comics in the Evolving Media Landscape," another about "The tools of Webcomics: The infinite canvas and other innovations", and one more about "iComic: A Deeper Look Into the Adapting World of Cartoons"- in them, our subject gets mentioned respectively seven, two, and two times; a couple of corporate media-statements in French, one by Hachette that they'll be publishing something from Hiveworks, and another from Hiveworks' partner ActuaBD; and a post by Publishers Weekly about how comics have become "the King of Libraries" (the text on our subject takes one paragraph). All we're left with are the 2021 inclusion of Xellette Stillwell in Forbes "30 under 30" yearly list; a Comics Beat advertorial about our subject's "latest releases"; and a report focusing exclusively on Mari Naomi, "creator and maintenance person" for a number of databases, in which our subject is mentioned once as part of Naomi's past work; there's a great article titled "Nerds flame on at Flame Con: all the queer cheer is here" in which many persons, characters, publishers, and platforms are mentioned, plus our subject; Book Riot offers an article titled "5 Queer-friendly Comics Publishers You Should Know" and one of the five is out subject. And that's it. We do not have enough cumulative citations specifically about our subject, and not abt others. Personally? I hope eventually they arrive. -The Gnome (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mineirinho Ultra Adventures[edit]

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

other than a few negative fan reviews and passing mentions, this doesn't appear to be a notable game. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 23:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reliable source I can find is Vice. Otherwise there's zero results among WP:VG/S's custom search, and there's no critical reviews to check at all on Metacritic. -- ferret (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Andre🚐 02:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above lacks sources except the Vice Source.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Action level[edit]

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

Unsourced and a stub for seventeen years, this does not appear to merit coverage as a separate article. Perhaps it should be in Wiktionary, perhaps it should be merged and redirected somewhere, but it should not stay here. BD2412 T 23:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 23:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom and basically WP:NOTDICT. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:21, 6 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!} 23:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulaziz Al-Faraj[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:SPORTBASIC. Of the six references, four are football database entries. Of the remaining two references, one mentions him in one sentence of an article to say he has been signed to a team. The other one is about the team, and lists all the players of the team in one of paragraphs. Singularity42 (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Saudi Arabia. Singularity42 (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a WP:BEFORE search did not bring up enough to pass WP:SPORTBASIC. Suonii180 (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not seem to have substantial coverage, which is unsurprising given that his career has barely started. No prejudice against recreating should he garner significant coverage in the future Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Enterr10 Television Network. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enterr10[edit]

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

Article has very minimal sourcing that doesn't support notability of the channel. Sources need to have significant coverage of the channel itself, and it's just not there. This was a redirect to Enterr10 Television Network, rather than delete this article, the redirect should be restored. Ravensfire (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Architecture, Companies, and India. Ravensfire (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect to Enterr10 Television Network. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Enterr10 Television Network, topic fails notability criteria but redirect as per ATD. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ron S. Geffner[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. Has apparently been interviewed on notable platforms like Bloomberg Television but I see no in-depth coverage of him personally in reliable, independent sources. I have also nominated Sadis & Goldberg for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadis & Goldberg but these are probably best dealt with separately. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Law. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to have references as a pundit/commentator. Andrevan@ 23:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What makes a pundit or commentator inherently notable? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A pundit or commentator is not inherently notable, but this person appears to be interviewed and make appearances as an expert since he was formerly an SEC lawyer, so I think that confers some notability. He's also mentioned in a few books. Ron Geffner graduated Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law and began working for the SEC in the New York branch in 1991, making $40,000 a year. Geffner was SEC “class of '91,”, Too Good to Be True: The Rise and Fall of Bernie Madoff, House of Cards: A Tale of Hubris and Wretched Excess on Wall Street, “This is like waking up in the summer with snow on the ground,” said Ron Geffner, a former SEC enforcement lawyer. “The price is indicative that there were bigger problems at Bear than the clients and the public realized., The Street-Smart Trader: An insider's guide to the City, “Every trader wants an edge and there are many grey areas when it comes to aggressive research,” Ron Geffner, a lawyer at New York-based Sadis & Goldberg told the Bloomberg news service shortly after Rajaratnam's arrest. Andrevan@ 00:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Femke (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All I can find are quotes in various articles but no significant coverage of him personally. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 04:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Nepal[edit]

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

There are no independent reliable sources providing significant coverage. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Nepal. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The news Pastor Ordination in Asha Church, published by NepalChurch.org, a news site about Christianity in Nepal is indeed an independent and reliable source providing coverage significant. The same can be said about the article on the website Poilnam and WordandDeed. Sources do not need to be entirely independent of Christianity to present independent coverage of a Christian topic. The sources present in the article evidence the notability quickly and clearly. The reliability of at least two sources is good.Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Femke (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a single independent and reliable source. Fails Notability. ~ Yeti Dai (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find independent significant coverage to establish WP:N. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage and is not notable. DIVINE (talk) 17:03, 6 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 05:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MasterPeace Bangladesh[edit]

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

Classic WP:SELFPUB. Half of the sources are published by the very organisation that this article is about; what remains are obscure sites that have no reputation for accuracy and fact checking, not meeting WP:RS. Coverage falls short of requirements under notability guidelines. This article should be deleted. UserNumber (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 29. UserNumber (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NGO#2, which is to say that after a thorough search I cannot find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering doing a procedural close as the AFD nominator failed to tag the article or post a notice for the article creator, letting them know about this discussion. A bot did tag the article but this was not correctly done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my first instinct was look for merge/redirect potential, but after searching, I wasn't even able to establish notability for the parent organization via WP:NGO or WP:GNG, let alone this local chapter. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 19:47, 8 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 Withdrawn following the rewrite. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous science[edit]

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

Advocacy article with no evidence of notability. The first two sources are not reliable. The third source is essentially primary in this context (being used to as "proponent" of the conspiracy theory) and does not by my reading express opposition to the scientific method. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article on astrology also calls its subject matter pseudoscientific, does that make it an advocacy article? Partofthemachine (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, because there are multiple reliable sources debunking the concept of astrology provided there. This article does not have that, and the fourth source you just added, in addition to being primary, isn't even talking about the same thing that you claim the third source is a "proponent of". This article is WP:SYNTH of unrelated sources to make a point, and astrology is not. (Nor are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments valid at AfD anyway) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely not WP:SYNTH because the first two sources I cited (both of which are written by reputable scientists) explicitly state that IS is not science. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you think this subject is appropriate for an article, but disagree with the content of it, you should discuss that on the talk page instead of nominating it for deletion. Partofthemachine (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Come on man, it is trivial to find good, peer-reviewed publications on this topic [1][2][3][4]. What this article needs is throwing out the rubbish sources currently present, integration of some solid academic sources, and then a rewrite that gets away from the finger-wagging "PSEUDOSCIENCE!" focus; this concept is principally one of traditional knowledge preservation and post-colonial cultural integration. This is an indigenous science project. We are ill served with a knee-jerk stub culled from newspaper headlines. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm going to come back later today and fix this article. This article as it stands now is just lazy and offensive. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 17:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've finished a rough rewrite of the article. I'll try to find some more time later to improve it more. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:34, 7 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Roberts (DJ)[edit]

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

Another biographical article about a local radio DJ who has jobbed around various small stations but is not especially noteworthy. A message regarding this has been displayed since June 2017. Flip Format (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and United Kingdom. Flip Format (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, DJ that moves around to different jobs. I find nothing for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As this article currently stands, it is hard to advocate for its retention. Rillington (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Oaktree lacks sourcing fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there isn't enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Lake[edit]

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

Article about a jobbing local radio presenter whose main claim to notability appears to be that he once broke the broadcasting rules. Article reads like a promotional piece. Flip Format (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United Kingdom, and Wales. Flip Format (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is very out of date and don't believe Allan is still working in radio anyway. Adamiow (talk) 23:09, 5 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Rhodes (fighter)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA. Subject had 3 professional fights strictly in one UFC tournament, doesn't even have a profile in Fight Matrix's database, nor has he appeared in any of Sherdog's rankings. As for WP:GNG, I couldn't find any significant or in-depth coverage on the subject. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 19:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, United States of America, and Nevada. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 19:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom starship .paint (exalt) 02:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to have been a notable MMA fighter or meet any other SNG. Profiles in some databases are not enough to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough information for WP:GNG requirements Kazanstyle (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Clog Wolf _Howl 07:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon (footballer, born 1995)[edit]

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

Created by virtue of playing in the USL Championship, thus passing the former WP:NFOOTY. I can't find any indication that he passes WP:GNG, with the closest thing being this by his current club Birmingham Legion FC, which is PRIMARY though. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think there's just enough coverage to meet GNG. Giant Snowman 07:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - found and added new sources. Seems to meet GNG. Pinging @GiantSnowman:, as requested above. RedPatch (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are database websites (Soccerway), primary (club websites), interviews, and routine transfer news. I don't think it's enough, and I've seen many other articles deleted with similary sourcing. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like that's the majority of football player articles that will be written and sourced such as that though (transfer news articles that summarize their career/key match performances in articles about the match, and player interview articles). The sources in this article are not all are primary, there are multiple secondary ones, plus there are no database/soccerway sourcing in this article. Even the other Marlon Santos article, despite having played in Serie A and Ligue 1, still only has that same type of sourcing (transfer news and primary articles sourced in his article) and is written in the exact same form as this article is, as are the majority of basic football articles (basically unless a player is super elite, transfer articles will be the main articles about them, supplemented by game articles/year end team articles). My rule of thumb has always been if their transfers are covered in non-primary sources (with a decent enough amount of detail) such as [5], [6], [7], [8] then it's good. If it's primary team sites only I say noRedPatch (talk) 23:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the other Marlon's page is more or less to the same standard as this one's. However, there are many more in-depth sources online which are not being used, such as [9] and [10]. I don't see sources such as these in this article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That first one is definitely more detailed. GNG is pretty subjective anyways, so what meets it for one isn't necessarily enough for another. While there weren't really any "Outstanding" sources, I feel there were enough Okay-Good sources to meet it. It wasn't really a struggle for me to find sources to make it a decent Start article, sometimes it's a lot more difficult for me to find them. Feel there might be a more sources in Portuguese too that didn't pop up in an English google search. RedPatch (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that consensus in this deletion discussion will be useful for me to understand where the limit of passing GNG lies. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 11:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are several sources which are good, including this and this. Meets WP:BASIC. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Samanthany (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first source just says that he scored a goal, nothing more than that. The second is ok-ish, but it's far from substantial. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 01:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Besides the sources above, I found another source about him right away, 5, among many many other sources from various websites. In addition, he is a fully pro player with an ongoing career. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 10. By the time I finish writing this, another ten will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not sure at what point the article passed the GNG threshold (it has gone from 3 citations at the time of nomination to 18 at present) but it does now. St Anselm (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG after recent adjustments.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:50, 7 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fardad Fateri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I did a thorough analysis of the page's sources (please, see the Talk page "Proposed improvement or deletion of the page" and found that there is not even one article with in-depth coverage of the subject.The article about Fardad Fateri was created in 2013 when the standards for sources were not followed properly. I checked the last nomination for deletion (no consensus) and found out that even the creator of the page Cbryant23 agreed that the page was not notable but forgot to vote accordingly, offering to speedily delete the page. I thoroughly checked the articles’ references and didn’t find any publications that can qualify to prove notability of the executive. Per WP’ requirement we need 3 in-depth articles about Fardad Fateri but there is not even one that can meet the requirement. The article is also poorly referenced and doesn’t cite the sources properly. Onetimememorial (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone's convenience, here is the link the analysis I did:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fardad_Fateri#Proposed_improvement_or_deletion_of_the_page

--Onetimememorial (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm torn on this one. There's a long history of apparent WP:COI with the editors on this article trying to whitewash criticism, and deleting this article would serve in removing justifiably negative coverage of Fateri - especially since this article is the top Google search result for his name. However, I am also not finding any significant reliably sourced coverage of Fateri. There are a couple that mention his name and a couple sentences about his work background, but they're trivial mentions. If this article is deleted, I would at the very least recommend a lot of scrutiny on International_Education_Corporation and his other affiliated organizations to ensure they're not also suffering from COI. PDXBart (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PDXBart, I believe that notability of the page for Fardad Fateri and his involvement with International_Education_Corporation are two different issues and both have to be resolved in separate. If Fardad Fateri is found not notable to have a separate page on Wikipedia, then some of the information can be merged with other relevant pages including International_Education_Corporation.--Onetimememorial (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Onetimememorial, AFD is not a vote, but instead a discussion, and the closer reads the statements and closes based on their strengths. Cbryant23 commented in the previous discussion; it is irrelevant whether they specifically summarized their position with a keyword such as "keep". It's also not their WP:OWN page, so it's only of minor relevance what they now think of it. I note that much of their original content was excised editorially as being inappropriate; I'll WP:AGF that they now have second thoughts about the subject itself, but one might reasonbly say that "the article they wrote" isn't really this one. DMacks (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is not a voting but rather opinions sharing. I meant that the creator of the page reacted weird by offering to speedily delete the page after PROD, which speaks about their lack of knowledge about Wikipedia basic rules. However, AFD process requires me to notify the original creator of the page regardless of their level of contribution — and so I did. --Onetimememorial (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. Other than the LA Times piece (number 4, from 1998) there is no in-depth coverage on him in reliable sources that could be used to pass WP:GNG. Even the LA Times piece appears to predate his professional career and has no relation to any of the other claims to notability. He doesn't appear to qualify for WP:AUTHOR either, since I don't see any of his works being discussed or reviewed by any notable publications. His PhD dissertation is his most cited work, with a grand total of 3 citations on Google Scholar. Being CEO of International Education Corporation is not enough to pass WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME. As for the legal actions against the IEC, I think the guidelines from WP:NOTWHOSWHO are relevant: "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." The coverage of the action against IEC seems only to contain passing mentions of the subject, so it may be worth merging some of the content from this article to International Education Corporation.Chagropango (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with the analysis of the nominator. I realize now that Wikipedia's standards of notability are much higher than I thought at the time when I created and published this page. It is very different now from my original version. Also, the reviewing standards in 2013 were not so good as they are now, so this article wouldn't stand a chance in 2022.
Edit summary: Delete. -Cbryant23 Cbryant23 (talk) 04:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME, WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG and WP:BIO Kazanstyle (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks sources other than LA Times article fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Mason[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am just not seeing evidence of notability, though there's likely COI creation and ongoing COI edits adding every bare mention of this guy, so I think everything that's available out there about him is actually already cited to in the article. Google brings up nothing. I did a source assessment, which is at Talk:Todd Mason#Notability. There's a single instance of sigcov in local business press but otherwise just nothing outside of stuff generated from press releases, bare mentions, routine business coverage of his companies rather than him, affiliated, interviews, etc., and most of it is in the same iffy media. Valereee (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Washington, D.C.. Valereee (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed on lack of reliable sources. Mr. Mason needs to use a personal website and an IMDB page if he wants to list his career details extensively. His LinkedIn and other social media is extremely self promoting (no value judgement) and this article is in line with the rest of his internet presence. The majority of this (unsourced) content was added by a single user that hasn't touched any other articles, and I would guess is Mr. Mason himself or someone he hired. I'm not alone in this thought judging by the WP:DISCLOSE banner already on the article. PDXBart (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: The excellent source analysis Valereee has at Talk:Todd_Mason#Notability highlights the problems with this article. There's a lot of sources, but only one really good source. Many of the rest focus on a company where Mason was working and as he's been high up in several, there's a quote or two from him. That's not helpful for notability. There are areas where the article seems to exaggerate claims beyond what the article supports ("Mason created the world’s first major REMI Broadcast Hub") when the source, a press release from his company, only says it's doubling the capacity of an existing hub a year after opening the company's first center. That's correctable by editing, but it's emblamatic of the problems in the article. Press releases, bio pages on his company's website, interviews, articles focusing on a company make up most of the sources. WP:CREATIVE is the notability guideline most appropriae, and I'm not seeing that being met. No solid sources that support him being an important figure or widely cited by peers. Nothing to back a significant new concept/technique. While he's been involved in a fair number of works, the sources are mostly mentions of the company with at best a passing mention of Mason. The article notes that he's won several Telly Awards (but no reliable sources to support Mason winning), but this award doesn't feel like a significant award. The fact sheet from 5ish years ago [11] notes that the judging isn't competitive, with each nominee individually graded and upwards of 25% of entries with at least a Bronze award across a rather large number of categories. With CREATIVE not met, the fallback is WP:GNG and a single good quality source doesn't meet that. Ravensfire (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One reason that the page reads like his promotional materials is because parts of it at least have been copied from them. Some of that remains despite all the clean-up that's been done; I've blanked the page and listed it at WP:CP – the editor responsible has more than 30 edits to the page and I have neither the time nor the inclination to check every one of them today. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and delete per the analysis of sources by Valereee. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't really understand why this has been renominated 3 times. It seems fairly clear that the subject is not notable by any criteria. Media coverage is extremely sparse, and I can't even find any information on the Washington Business Journal's editorial policies which could confirm that the coverage is not part of paid public relations. Chagropango (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Valereee's table lays it out clearly, and my own BEFORE identifies no other sourcing on which we could write an article. Subject also appears to want it deleted and while we don't need to comply with wishes, no sense in not since notability is thin at best. Star Mississippi 01:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:32, 11 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. It looks like the sourcing has improved a lot during the time of this AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yana Ross[edit]

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

There seems to be a problem with notability, since the article cites no RS (two of the links are her personal webpages, one is a link to a play she directed, and the fourth link is dead). HPfan4 (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Theatre, and Latvia. Shellwood (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hard to find links about this theater person, many links to someone with the same name helping Ukrainian refugees. I find this from the NYT [12], helps notability but doesn't fully satisfy it. Not sure how an interview in a peer-reviewed journal fares [13] ? Oaktree b (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only reasonable RS I can find is the mentioned peer-reviewed article and accompanying website/video by the author of article PDXBart (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC. There is in-depth coverage: Yana Ross: A Director Who Transforms Timeless to Timely (The Theatre Times, 2017 - while this includes an interview, it has substantial additional WP:SECONDARY content to help support notability). In addition to the 2022 NYT review of her work noted above, there is also a 2019 Theatre Times review, and via GScholar: DER KIRSCHGARTEN (THE CHERRY ORCHARD) (Theatre Journal, Vol. 72, Issue 2, June 2020); Performance Reviews: MORBROR VANJA (UNCLE VANYA) (Theatre Journal, Vol. 67, Iss. 3, Oct 2015), as well as secondary context for the 2021 interview in Contemporary Theatre Review, and a variety of citations to inaccesible sources related to her and her work. In the WP library, reviews of her work include "Play About Eastern European Middle Class" (The Warsaw Voice, 2016, "The article reviews the play "The Lake," directed by Yana Ross") and a citation for "Więcej niż węch / More Than Smell" (Didaskalia, (131):48-54, "Pola Sobaś-Mikołajczyk reviews Yana Ross's play Heart of a Dog"); on ProQuest, there is 2022 coverage in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, e.g. "Die Spur des Geldes: Salzburgs Festspiele und die Solway Group", e.g. (Google translated, "Yana Ross told online theater portal Nachtkritik.de that it's "very important that the festival belongs to the artists and not the sponsors, so it's our duty to taxpayers and the public to do the work they commission. Therefore we have no right to stop the work, but we have the right to draw the festival's attention to the mistakes made."") and "Ringelreih mit Knarre"; there is similar 2022 coverage in Welt am Sonntag, e.g. "Toxische Töne", Die Presse, e.g. "Die Klassikszene ist unter Druck" and "Kulturelle Kollateraldellen als Folge des Ukraine-Kriegs", and Die Welt, e.g. "Eine prüde Parade" (translation: "The only thing that caused a scandal in the new version by ten writers was the way the Latvian-born American director Yana Ross and the Swiss author Lukas Bärfuss attracted media attention about the "toxic" festival sponsorship", with additional commentary on the production). Beccaynr (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can see why you might not see RS if you're only reading English and seeing the Ukrainian-refugee-helper, but Yana Ross Regisseurin (Yana Ross director, in German) brings up many articles in Google News from clearly reliable sources. This includes more than enough reviews of her directed shows to meet WP:CREATIVE in addition to meeting GNG. Samsmachado (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Beccaynr. Suonii180 (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No objections to renaming, which can be done through the normal editing process. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of chief ministers of Madhesh Province[edit]

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

What's the point of a list of 1? Including statistics (well, the 1 person is top and bottom of the list), and an extra list of the living examples (still the same 1 person). Was redirected, but apparently this was not acceptable either. I don't care if it gets redirected (somewhat unlikely search term) or deleted, but as a separate article it is completely meaningless. Fram (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and Nepal. Fram (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and Rename to Chief Minister of Madhesh Province. The article can be expanded to look like Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the list can remain as a section of the Executive position particle. It is a newly created state, a valid and acceptable stub article. --Venkat TL (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC) Venkat TL (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Nepal. Venkat TL (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Venkat TL. A list of 1 is indeed useless, but the office is clearly notable. De Guerre (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Venkat TL. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rename per Venkalt. DIVINE (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as suggested. It is TOOSOON to need a list article, but we do need one on the office. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. The topic of "chief minister of Madhesh Province" is notable, but a list-form article is not yet necessary (nor useful). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping and renaming will solve the current issue. Azuredivay (talk) 04:30, 9 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 Thanjavur Palace Devastanam Temples. I believe that the merge has already started so this is affirming on an action already being taken. As an aside, it is not necessary to indicate that an AFD participant is the article creator. They are as free to voice their opinion here as anyone else and, as far as I'm concerned, their comments don't need a tag that seems to dismiss them as less worthy than any other editor's words. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanjavur Nisumbasuthani Temple[edit]

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

There are notable temples in Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, but this temple is not one of the notable ones. Lack of coverage in reliable media. Only sources are temple directories (yellow pages). Venkat TL (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Hinduism, India, and Tamil Nadu. Venkat TL (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanakkam, Venkat TL. More information about the temple has been added now with reliable media sources. The iconography of the deity, the construction period, the connected story with the temple, the worshipping time and other particulars are added now. I wish to inform that all the photographs were taken on the day of Kumbabishegam and were added earlier. Request to delete Articles for deletion.--B Jambulingam (talk) 08:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: B Jambulingam (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Vanakkam, @B Jambulingam I am not convinced that this is a notable temple. This seems to be a run of the mill temple that are found in every street in Tamil Nadu, cities. There is nothing in the page or the refs that make it notable. The build and temple architecture are fairly new and there is no claim from a reliable source or ASI about the ancient history. The claims of old history are promotional and should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Thanjavur Palace Devasthanam, Thanjavur 613 009 this link is about the page Thanjavur Palace Devastanam Temples. No relevance to the Thanjavur Nisumbasuthani Temple.
வி.ராம்ஜி, தாலி வரம் தருவாள் நிசும்பசூதனி, இந்து தமிழ் திசை, 8 ஜனவரி 2021 is a totally promotional article, basically an advertorial. It is singing praises about the temple without giving any factual information.
வெற்றி அருளும் நிசும்பசூதனி, இல்லம் தேடி வரும் இறை தரிசனம், விகடன், 4 ஏப்ரல் 2020 is a promotional article. talking about the deity.
சும்பன், நிசும்பனை அழித்த தஞ்சாவூர் நிசும்பசூதனி, தினமணி, 16 செப்டம்பர் 2017 is a promotional article. talking about the deity. It says that "This temple is one of the 88 temples under the Thanjavur Palace Devasthanam."

As claimed, this temple might be a part of the 88 temples of Thanjavur Palace Devastanam Temples. If so, then this Thanjavur Nisumbasuthani Temple should be listed on the page of the Thanjavur Palace Devastanam Temples along with the refs. Based on the sources found so far, I see no reason why every minor temple in this group of temples need to be covered in a separate Wikipedia page. Only historically and architecturally significant temples that are covered by independent media should have their own Wikipedia page. Venkat TL (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanakkam, Venkat TL. Thanks. Info added in Palace Devastanam Amman Temples. So, Thanjavur Nisumbasuthani Temple may be deleted. --B Jambulingam (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing to merge, I believe Palace Devastanam Amman Temples should also be merged to Thanjavur Palace Devastanam Temples. I have started merge discussion on talk pages. Venkat TL (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naganatha Pillayar Temple, Thanjavur that was closed as merge. Venkat TL (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thanjavur Palace Devastanam Temples. Indeed all the other lists of temples in that same compled should be merged also, there is already a merger discussion to that effect, please sign it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 14:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Thiele Restaurant[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources online containing information or coverage of this restaurant aside from a Vox article that only trivially mentions it (two sentences) along with dozens of other closed restaurants. One of the sources for this page, an archived page from the Oregon Encyclopedia community-driven website, has a bio on Henry Thiele along with what look like notable sources. I think an article about Henry Thiele specifically, with a mention of this restaurant, would be plenty appropriate. But not this restaurant by itself. PDXBart (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG (disclaimer: stub creator). Did you even try searching online? I very quickly found more sources to add. You can also find a source about the historic building on the article's talk page. This article should be expanded, not deleted. You might slow down on the deletion nominations until you're more familiar with the process, and please be sure to search for sources before jumping to AfD. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer Carrying over conversation on my talk page since it's relevant here too:

I did in fact run searches for RS for this article before nominating. The sources you've added do help, but aside from the book they all seemed WP:TRIVIAL to me. I agree that the book coverage, which I missed in my searches, could count as significant, and uncovering things like this is the point of AfD discussion. I would however suggest that if you're making good faith efforts to encourage better editing that revision notes like "yet another source; nominating editor sure didn't try hard..." might work better if following WP:NICE, WP:NEWBIES, and WP:AFDEQ. I appreciate your feedback regardless. I will leave this AfD open for consensus building that the book coverage in addition to other trivial coverage satisfies notability.

As for slowing down, I am simply following the Wikipedia "motto and...invitation to the newcomers [to be] WP:BOLD", which also suggests more experienced editors do not "thwart the efforts of newcomers who take that invitation at face value". I am making good faith efforts to clean up articles in the area that I live. If you have further questions about my motives or more detailed constructive feedback, you're welcome to leave it on my talk page. I have not until now received feedback across my AfD nominations that they were made carelessly. PDXBart (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I change my vote to speedy keep and close per nominator's own comment, "I agree that the book coverage, which I missed in my searches, could count as significant..." ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying the existence of that sources makes the article pass notability. I am saying, depending on one's opinion of what counts as significant and reliable, it could count as a significant source. I will rest my case however and let the community handle it from here. PDXBart (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I tend to agree with the OP, that it would make a whole lot more sense to have a bio of the clearly notable founder, than of the restaurant, but I don't feel strongly enough to vote "delete." However, I want to strenuously disagree about the dismissal of the Oregon Encyclopedia as a reliable source. It should be regarded as one of the best sources available on Oregon history. This is a publication born of the scholars of the state historical society and one of the largest public universities in the state. from their FAQ: "The Oregon Encyclopedia does not accept unsolicited entries. The encyclopedia is an authoritative publication, which means we adhere to a scholarly editorial process." It is run more or less like an academic journal, and adheres to Wikipedia's standards for sourcing more closely than any other source cited in this article. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Another Believer's comments above. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The existing sources demonstrate notability. Plus this is a defunct restaurant so I doubt anyone has any commercial intent to list it. Zeddedm (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG with the sources already in the article. Spudlace (talk) 22:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Lewitus[edit]

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

An impressive list of accomplishments, but I can't find any significant coverage of him in secondary, reliable sources, or evidence that he meets WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:GNG. Storchy (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Music, Medicine, and Peru. Storchy (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He also wrote a book in 2021 "From Conception to Birth" with zero reviews. I think he's just a good doctor that likes music. Not notable here for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of SIGCOV, no scientific publications, no indication of meeting notability standards for authors or musicians.Draken Bowser (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Perhaps a polymath who has excelled in many things, but that does not make him notable enough to qualify for an encyclopedic article. This seems like an attempt to copy his resume. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:33, 7 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 Segway. ✗plicit 14:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Segway Fest[edit]

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

Never caught on, which is why it was cancelled. Not finding RS that are covering it in a significant way, just forums and clones of this article. Fails GNG for an event. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Clear fail of WP:GNG. A valid redirect to Segway, to which any useful content could be merged. Edwardx (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only mention I find is there [14] a whole of 90 people gathered in a bar 15 plus yrs ago. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I have to agree with Edwardx here. He makes a valid point. Zombles - Talk to me 14:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 05:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Deputy Chief Minister of Madhesh Province[edit]

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

A list of one is not a list worth having, and the title is incorrect so a redirect isn't useful either. Fram (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Lists of people. Fram (talk) 11:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram Madhesh Province is a state in Nepal. It has Nothing to do with the Indian Madhya Pradesh. Cant see anything wrong in the spelling or why it should be deleted. May be merge to the list of CM article but why delete? Venkat TL (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the country mixup. "List of Deputy Chief Minister" is incorrect English, not worthy of a redirect. Nothing worth merging either. Fram (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and Rename to Deputy Chief Minister of Madhesh Province. The article can be expanded to look like Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the list can remain as a section of the Executive position particle. It is a newly created state, a valid and acceptable stub article. Venkat TL (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"the list can remain as a section"? Why keep such a completely useless list of 1? And without the list, you have "1" sentence, the deputy chief minister is the deputy to the chief minister. Fram (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In South Asian governments the Deputy CM is the second highest post in the Political executive of the state, so clearly notable per WP:GNG.^{Updated, Venkat TL (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)} This page can discuss his roles and responsibilities along with a historical list of the biographies who occupied that post. I note your objection but I still don't see any problem in a list of 1 item. I will prefer to agree to disagree. Venkat TL (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"along with a historical list of the biographies who occupied that post." What, all of the history of this post, starting way back in, er, 2021? Fram (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rome was not built in a day. When do you suggest that article be started? 2221? Venkat TL (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't change your posts after they have been replied to[15] (except small typos, or to strikeout stuff). Fram (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Nepal. Venkat TL (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Deputy Chief Minister of Madhesh Province, same as the other nomination. This is useless as a list, but the office is notable. It's okay if it's a stub for now. De Guerre (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain B nightclub fire[edit]

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

That a fire occurred in a nightclub does not make that fire notable. Fires, like bus accidents, occur all the time, and though tragic, they are not usually considered notable unless the death toll is unusually high or the fire occurred for unusual reasons. Neither seems to be the case here. WP:NOTNEWS. A loose necktie (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, although it's a very sad event, it is one for the newspapers, not here. We should cover fires of this sort only if they have sustained consequences, repercussions that turn them into broadly notable events rather than personal tragedies. Elemimele (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I added this to Current Events, this morning, and although an obviously tragic event it is, however, not deserving of its own page. MattSucci (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has a double-digit death toll. The fire took longer to extinguish because of flammable soundproofing material in the building. It's nothing like a standard house fire with a single-digit death toll. There's no minimum death toll needed to establish notability & many of our articles about fires had low-double-digit death tolls. What are you saying isn't the case in regard to this fire that is in regard to the dozens of other fires that have their own WP articles? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We require sustained news coverage of the event, I can barely find anything about it, one mention in the New York Post. It barely got noticed in the first place. Can barely get coverage at all, it won't meet GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about the Bangkok Post? It seems problematic to use the New York Post as a standard here.--66.76.243.26 (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources other than the one given in the article. Unfortunate but the news cycle has moved on it seems. Oaktree b (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue - it's covered by many mainstream media sources, including CNN, Al Jazeera, Reuters & NPR. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if you want me to review them for sources, post links to the articles, not to their Wikipedia pages please. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It took me seconds to find those [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep, ~~per nom.~~ Hey man im josh (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been significantly improved. Changing to a keep. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per latest edit by me. As the the author of the counterpart article on Thai Wikipedia, I have translated it to English. Many sources are available and investigations are still ongoing (plus, corruption is highly suspected by the media as well - leading to even more investigations into the incidence), of course, mostly in Thai. IMO, It is a "notable enough" incident as it had two digits deaths and was the first of its kind in the given region. Such incident is rare in Thailand and has since sparked widespread debates and talks on Thai media. Please allow me to fix the article and please kindly provide me recommendations for the article to be improved. Thank you. --Chainwit. (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then wouldn't it be better to wait a little, until the long-term significance and notability of the event are clear? We have the luxury that unlike a newspaper, we are not obliged to be up-to-the-minute. I would be prepared to consider draftification instead of deletion. Elemimele (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments for deletion could include it being too short & not having many sources. Those can no longer be argued. Its quality is good enough for mainspace. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presently, the article is, to say the least, poorly written and drawn out to an unnecessary extent solely in order to try and pass it off as adequate, which in my opinion it doesn't even come close to being. MattSucci (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now that's better, the article has been expanded from the one line it was this AM. Sources are all in Thai, I'm not this invested to go through them one by one. I still find no sources about it, leaning delete (still). Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was never one line; it was three when I created it. The UK source I used - The Independent - has been repeatedly removed. Many reliable mainstream sources outside Thailand are covering it, including Al Jazeera, the BBC, CBS, CNN, The Guardian, NPR, Reuters & The Washington Post. I don't know why you're claiming that there's a lack of media coverage of it. Enter Thailand fire into Google & you'll see the coverage. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know if the discussions on (1) "possible a corruption case" (of course, await further investigations) (2) "similarities to the 2009 Bangkok nightclub fire" - stirring criticisms and (3) "being the first disaster to occurred in the district" would suffice the notability of the article (which is the reason the article was put for deletion). These are all the topics I found interesting and have so far made the case relatively more notable in comparison to countless other fires with similar death tolls in Thailand. If these aren't the case, then proceed the deletion process as I cannot find any further interesting notes in the incidence. Ps, if it's the case that this cannot be an article on its own; is it possible to have the content included in maybe related articles Santika Club fire or Sattahip District? --Chainwit. (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the result of this AfD, this fire should be briefly mentioned in the History section of Sattahip district. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I agree with Jim Michael. If this gets deleted, the nightclub fire should still be at least mentioned in the Sattahip District article. Vida0007 (talk) 22:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it happened today? I'd suggest we draftify to see where it goes and what happens, it could be something big, or nothing. It's almost too soon to tell. Oaktree b (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once-in-a-decade disaster in Thailand which has been dominating the national headlines, and can easily be expected to be in the news for weeks and months going forward. It is not possible to predict WP:SUSTAINED coverage in the future, but a case such as this is very likely to have WP:LASTING effects. If that turns out not to be the case, it can be AfDed then. WP:EVENT#Don't rush to delete articles. PS The comparison to bus accidents is actually quite illuminating. A bus accident with a similar death toll wouldn't register as they occur all the time in Thailand. Contrarily, a fire such as this is a very significant event, and shows why the death toll doesn't matter in establishing notability. --Paul_012 (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This stands to be a very significant news, especially Thailand, given nightclub disasters seems to be one of a kind there. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above, I think this is pretty significant. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it doesn't matter what users here think, the topic has garnered "significant coverage in reliable sources". Abductive (reasoning) 06:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 11:30, 11 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 per WP:SNOW. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Baldwin[edit]

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

Article unjustifiably created, and evidently/likely by the subject of the article (or a direct affiliate or acquaintance), which constitutes a conflict of interest anyway – Furthermore, this is not a truly notable or significant individual, musician, or public figure. They should not have a Wikipedia entry. Nor should this person be listed under North Atlanta High’s notable alumni, 1995 births, Living people, or any of the several other categories and articles to/on which they are linked.

As a musical act, they were never signed under any major (or independent) label or imprint, have never charted on any official record charts (0 results on Billboard for instance), and have no noteworthy (let alone legitimate) social media audience or following. It is suspected that their Verified check marks (Instagram and Facebook) were swindled, primarily due to the existence of this very Wikipedia article (and under the guise of public relevance). In addition, no trace whatsoever of their music (or any other significant work) even exists online at this point:

• In previous years, they simply posted their homemade music on their personal SoundCloud and YouTube ― to minimal plays and impressions

• They were never (and still are not) on any major streaming platforms or music services

• All their online content is removed altogether (absolutely no content is on YouTube or SoundCloud or streaming platforms such as Apple Music, Spotify, etc.) plus all their social media profiles (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat) have by now been emptied, hidden, made private, and/or abandoned for an extended time

They seemingly have transitioned all their online profiles from “Musical/recording artist” to the “Social media influencer” type. Therefore, they are indeed using their illegitimate social media Verification and misleading Wikipedia entry in hopes of attracting real followers instead of bot or purchased followers.

Finally, the article’s “sources” are not reliable and are all unknown, local, niche, and/or personal webpages directly connected to the subject (who, again, most likely authored this entry or had it authored on their own behalf). Moreover, every “source” is from fall to winter of 2016, with many of the links being dead, having expired domains, or being largely empty/devoid of any content (e.g., the subject’s very own, self-published tonibaldwin.com). UsernamePolicyPassed (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; The Fame magazine thing is an interview article of the least reliable sort, and nearly everything else is from the subject's own website and facebook pages. Impossible to find anything remotely significant with Google. Elemimele (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 11:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing a single RS about this, 98% of the page is self referencing her website. Cool music but WP:PROMO PDXBart (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete never charted at the time, and hasn't seemingly released music in quite a few years from what I see. Wasn't notable then, very likely isn't now. Oaktree b (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We had another AfD with a foodie person in Atlanta with the same name, she keeps popping up when I try finding stuff for this person. Either one isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And the website is her name in big letters with a sign-up option, nice way to harvest emails, there is no content. If she was notable, I'd at least expect an updated website. Oaktree b (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly not notable, WP:PROMO. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It looks like she was a relentless self-promoter for a couple of years, with shenanigans like announcing her own album release in a short YouTube video and then using that video as evidence in self-published webzine articles about how the album was announced. The article is dependent on her own rampant self-promotional social media posts before she apparently got bored and dropped that strategy. I can find no evidence that her releases or overall career were noticed by anyone other than herself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does seem like WP:PROMO, don't see how meets WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The individual fails WP:NBASIC and WP:NMUSIC and the tone of the article is promotional. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Styllz[edit]

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

Promo piece on a non-notable media personality. Sources cited are gossip columns, churnalism, non-RS media, and/or don't provide sigcov of the subject. A search finds only more of the same (including some negative coverage, which has been left out of this draft). Moved into the main space past AfC. Earlier speedy request was removed without explanation, so next stop AfD. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Entertainment, Zimbabwe, and Turkey. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly gossip-tabloid stuff, he scammed or got scammed somehow, find a bit more about that bit of it. Oaktree b (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS of sigcov, some sourcing is clearly manufactured promotion on an otherwise fake site (zimbolivenews, which has articles that are straight up gibberish) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PDXBart (talk • contribs) 19:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly not notable. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable individual. -Xclusivzik (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:32, 11 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 The Walking Dead (TV series) characters#Alexandria Safe-Zone. Sandstein 09:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia (The Walking Dead)[edit]

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

I've prodded it a while ago with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. ". PROD was removed without any rationale offered by a user since topic banned from deprodding. We then held a merge discussion that ended with no consensus (Talk:List_of_The_Walking_Dead_(TV_series)_characters#Merge_secondary_chacters_with_little_reception_here). Given the reception here is still a single sentence, I think it's time for an AfD, with my recommendation being a redirect to the List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Based on my comments on the talk page, I doubt that I searched for more sources on this one. I'm going to find the time to do that today, it just takes some time to go through each of the episode pages to look for sources, but fortunately as a supporting character (albeit an important one) she didn't appear in as many episodes as the major characters, nor would she have had a very important role in many episodes - based on what I recall of some of her final episodes, she should have some kind of sourceable reception information. It will most likely be a question of how much to merge, ultimately. BOZ (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect unless more substantial sources are found. What's in the article is fairly trivial, so I don't think it meets GNG. TTN (talk) 13:28, 11 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 2021–2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis. The need for a standalone sub-article has not been demonstrated. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes[edit]

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

The majority of this article is just a copy of background information already on 2021–2022 Armenia–Azerbaijan border crisis, which already summarizes the actual clashes in the August 2022 section. This article should be deleted, with only a possible redirect to the main border crisis article left behind. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the border crisis article. Cleary a copy of the main article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think the content can be covered in the main article so this article can be deleted, another "copy" which is even more problematic is Operation Revenge (2022). AntonSamuel (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect because it can easily be covered by a paragraph or two in the main article. If the clashes continue the rest of the week or escalate, maybe remake the article but for now it should be deleted. Same with the page for Operation Revenge (2022), which is very blatantly one-sided. Jebiguess (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: another excessively detailed NOTNEWS-y article with subject matter already covered elsewhere. No need for a standalone article. Drmies (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect. Seems like a reasonable subsarticle to the main conflict. If it is motly a fork, SOFTDELETE and redirect is the second best option. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus It is mostly a fork, and I don't mind it being redirected to the main article where most of the information is already present, summary of August clashes 2021–2022_Armenia–Azerbaijan_border_crisis#August_2022 (like the other months above). This isn't something noteworthy for a separate article, it's mere news. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with @Piotrus (jabz) 19:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep currently this article is extremely relevant. While some changes are needed, deletion is not the best idea. Cookiegator (talk) 03:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closer— Cookiegator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. I have mainly made edits in American politics Cookiegator (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a standard ((spa)) template text, it automatically writes when placed. Your account is 4 days old, with this being the first AfD you're participating in (a controversial one at that). Better note would be you not having any edits in AA topic area besides this AfD. Either of ((canvassed)) or ((spa)) would suit imo. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically I was notified of discretionary sanctions on this subject of post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people.witch is not related. I assume good intentions however you are not correct as this is about a unrelated war Cookiegator (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Archives908 (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect A separate timeline article would be ok if the active topic editors wanted to start something like that. I'm not sold on new articles for each month of the conlfict, even less so on deletion. Spudlace (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and expand elsewhere. desmay (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.- Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 08:55, 11 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 per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(viii)[edit]

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

Was PROD'ed and endorsed by 3 editors, but DEPROD'ed by creator without explanation. We do not have articles on individual Roman Numerals as they are not considered to be particularly noteworthy on their own. There is no viable content to merge and the article title is not a suitable redirect.

As per the PROD rationale, This is a dictionary definition, which Wikipedia is not, supplemented with a piece of trivia from a predatory journal. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per my original PROD rationale and endorsement comments. Also noting that Wiktionary and a predatory journal cannot be used to satisfy verifiability requirements. ^Complex/_Rational 11:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - As someone mentioned in the talk page, a delete is more appropriate than a redirect because it's an unconventional title that is unlikely to be used. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Wait, what? Why does this exist? XOR'easter (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual roman numerals are not suitable topics for an encyclopedia, and the title is not a plausible search term. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect It's the number 8, and nobody would use this as a redirect. Nate • (chatter) 21:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or not opposed to a cheap redirect to the number eight as I'm sure it wouldn't cause any harm. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a plausible target to be a redirect, we already have VIII as a redirect which would be the better place for this if it needed an article. If there is new information about the styling of Roman numerals - it can be added there. Per above that there is nothing otherwise noteworthy about writing 8 as a roman numeral. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Provides no substantive content, and would be equally useless as a redirect. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant to 8 (number), and is an implausible redirect due to the parenthesization. Merging is not useful either since there is very little content on this page. It is barely more than a WP:DICDEF. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:91D8:B29C:76C9:CBB (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NexTech AR Solutions Corp.[edit]

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

Not yet notable by WP:CORP. Company is listed on the CSE and the FSE, but as noted at WP:LISTED, while that should make it much more likely for a company to be notable, it doesn't guarantee it. So, while trying to replace the sea of press releases with some RS, I was surprised to find there's almost no independent, secondary coverage of the company online. Just a ton of press releases, and passing mentions in the financial press.

The article as created was pretty over-the-top marketing [21], complete with ™ symbols and gushing self-promo quotes from the CEO. This was made even worse last month by Special:Contributions/Purple_2020, whose COI was pretty obvious.

Editors User:WikiDan61, User:Canterbury Tail and I cleaned out most of the blatant marketing and lame attempts to connect the company with COVID response, but what remains is sourced only by press releases and sponsored content, and doesn't assert notability per WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Storchy (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and Canada. Storchy (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Andre🚐 18:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NCORP, I also did not find any sources that met even the WP:GNG standard, let alone NCORP. I also note the article creator is autopatrolled, but the article as initially written is so promotional I feels like it was written through some sort of WP:UPE. Jumpytoo Talk 20:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khel Raj Pandey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

local politician. fails WP:NPOL. PROD was contested -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nepal. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local politician without significant coverage fails NPOL. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Previously, I created this page and requested for self-deletion after realizing that the politician doesn't meet WP: NPOL. Hence, D. DIVINE (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Neither meets the WP:GNG criteria. Kind regards, — Tulsi 24x7 03:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Non aligned Mass discussion required.120.89.104.121 (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Andre🚐 22:42, 8 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#A7. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ngozi Penson[edit]

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

Not notable official or incumbent at least per ANYBIO Morpho achilles (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Nigeria, and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Mccapra (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Meets the A7 criteria. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 no doubt. Zombles - Talk to me 14:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible claim of notability, and I say that having searched. CT55555 (talk) 15:13, 5 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. Consensus seems to be divided between "keep" and "merge". A discussion about merging can continue in the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 07:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Hut[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced promo piece on a non-notable business. Considered draftifying, but BEFORE finds only the usual business listings, social media accounts, and a few mentions of their minor Twitter storm, hence unlikely to pass notability requirements in the foreseeable future. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ORGCRIT. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, Companies, and Philippines. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although we learn that "They were several clamors are manifested to plan", those clamors are not enough for notability. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tropical Hut is particularly notable and historic for being one of the oldest surviving burger joints in the Philippines (Grocery: 1962, Restaurant: 1965),^[1] older than the 2 most popular burger joints: Jolibee (1978) and McDonald's Philippines (1981). Coming from the Philippines, the place evokes nostalgia and has a special place in the hearts of older Filipinos. I've improved the article a bit. I hope it's okay now. -Object404 (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After some more digging, apparently it is the 7th oldest food chain in the Philippines.^[2] This makes Tropical Hut quite notable. -Object404 (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, none of this makes the subject notable in the slightest. Being the "Xth oldest" or "evoking nostalgia" have nothing to do with notability. Please review the GNG guideline, and provide sources that satisfy that. Thank you, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but where does it say that being "Xth oldest" does not make a subject notable? With all due respect, obviously you are not from the Philippines where Tropical Hut is considered to be an institution as far as restaurants go. It's notable enough to be have been mentioned many times in Philippine literature. I've added a few instances of these to the article. -Object404 (talk) 11:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Keep The article is not a promo. The food chain is notable. –Sanglahi86 (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the expansion done by Object404 makes the subject notable. Of course, it would be better to get more sources but I think this meets the threshold for notability. —seav (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is a bit of a stub, but its subject is definitely notable for the Philippine context. As such, it just needs to be expanded to better meet WP:RF as it is part of the history of fast food chains in the country. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 14:05, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NORG per above arguments. Sources presented by Object are reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, meets notability after a number of sources were added but needs some improvement on the said page. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is appropriate and Redirect to Mercury Drug#Tropical Hut changed !vote to Merge ~~Delete~~ This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. There are particular criteria for establishing the notability of a company. Also, unless blatantly obvious (e.g. Blog posts, Social Media (including twitter) etc), I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent from the topic organization - but there are a lot more requirements than just "RS" or mentions-in-passing "coverage" for establishing notability - we require *multiple* references that contains deep or significant in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) also containing "Independent Content". As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Here's an analysis of the references (excluding PRIMARY sources and twitter):
- Equire profile on the "Oldest Food Chains in the Philippines" but unfortunately is merely a very brief (4 sentences) description with no in-depth information, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- Interaksyon article is a commentary on various tweets, social media is generally not WP:RS and the article has no in-depth information, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- Another Interaksyon article is also commentary on social media mentions, not WP:RS and also fails CORPDEPTH
- Manila Bulletin article is yet another commentary on social media. It provides more details but attributes those to "its profile on Jobstreet". Again, no in-depth information and fails both CORPDEPTH and possibly ORGIND.
- The book Major Companies of the Far East and Australasia 1993/94 is a mere listing containing an adress and phone number and an activities tag of "Supermarket operators". Nothing more. Fails CORPDEPTH
- Bloomberg profile is based on information provided by the company and is considered trivial coverage, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
- CNN "In Photos" article is inspired by the recent "nostalgia" initiated by twitter in 2022 and is a reflection on the journalists' memories and visit to one of the branches sprinkled with other people's reflections from social media. Unfortunately it is also very light-weight containing no in-depth information and fails CORPDEPTH
- This Yahoo news article is also a commentary on the same recent wave of nostalgia and mentions the "hiring new staff" company announcment. Also fails CORPDEPTH.
- The remaining five books referenced in the article are mere mentions (as also described in the article) and also fails CORPDEPTH

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, most even acknowledge that not much is known, none of the "reviews" provide more than a brief mention of the company.

I searched for other references and one that appeared to contain detailed information is available on StudyMoose (a source of "free essays" according to the website) which was written in October 2016 and predates the references above. It isn't a reliable source though. I also came across this essay/document on PDFCoffee which also appears to contain in-depth information but I am unable to find an original which would meet WP:RS. Even the metadata on their profile on WIX here contains details which appear in this article but which predate it. There is a COPYVIO concern in relation to some of the content in the article. All in all, none of the references meet NCORP criteria and nearly all of the information is either copied from a PRIMARY source or fails WP:RS. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to the sources found not meeting the set criteria at WP:NCORP, as they either lack in-depth or independent coverage. Being the "7th oldest food chain" can't be used to establish notability. Hell, even the oldest food chain wouldn't be automatically notable, because NCORP is one of the most strict guidelines that requires sources and only sources to establish notability. When the sources don't meet the criteria set at NCORP, the rest is irrelevant. ~Styyx^Talk? 11:03, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to a merge per below. ~Styyx^Talk? 12:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources provided do not provide depth of significant coverage >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 15:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – Does not meet WP:NCORP through the sources found so far, per Styyx, Superastig, and HighKing's thorough analysis (among others). Only "weak", though, because a comprehensive search of Filipino sources has not been conducted, and the numerous pop culture references give me pause. Ovinus (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the consensus is that the article does not meet notability guidelines, instead of deleting it, we can just redirect it to Mercury Drug#Tropical Hut and merge it there. --Jojit (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Merge to Mercury Drug and expand it there, as per Lenticel's comment at Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines#Tropical Hut article up for deletion. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 00:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mercury Drug. I can't find good enough references from Google News archives and Google Books for Tropical hut. I suggest merging it to its parent article instead and put any useful refs there. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Mercury Drug article, expand using reliable and relevant references then go for a content split that will hopefully meet the organizations and companies notability guideline once the section is huge enough to be its own article. -Ian Lopez @ 06:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mercury Drug and briefly summarize it there, in agreement to the above. Ganmatthew (talk • contribs) 06:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't merge. Either this is notable or not. The Mercury Drug article isn't particularly long, but if it does get to be expanded and the content for Tropical Hut gets to be split, we'd be back with the same predicament here. Either the restaurant chain is notable or not. At this point, the article goes above and beyond WP:GNG, as there are multiple in-depth WP:RS about the company. Now if this article does not meet any other SNGs, that's not my problem as it does pass GNG, but if certain quarters will insist on using an SNG to delete this article, GNG vs SNG debate should happen elsewhere. (The article has some laughable references RN now, like a specific tweet from a nobody... sure that bloats the reference count. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SNG (literally the section below GNG), subject-specific guidelines in some cases "help clarify when a standalone article can or should be written". They "can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as [...] the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies". GNG requires reliable, independent and significant coverage. This company doesn't meet the GNG, because the available sourcing isn't considered to be independent for companies and for-profit organizations (because WP:ORGIND is a thing). So this actually doesn't go "above and beyond GNG", because it's not met at all. ~Styyx^Talk? 11:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two quick points, Howard my good duck. First, you say the article goes above and beyond WP:GNG, as there are multiple in-depth WP:RS about the company - that's not the test for GNG (or even going far beyond it), we need more than mere RS as sources. Second, as Styyx says, NCORP is a thing which we can ignore under exceptional circumstances and default to GNG, but you haven't made any such case for that here. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, the references are over and beyond what GNG looks for. "Social media" mentions are no different from what RS would do interviewing randoms on the street on what they noticed during a crime scene, or ESPN asking Tom Brady or Lionel Messi (ripping off the "based on information provided by the athlete") what he felt during the game. This is just the 21st century way of doing things. The Philippine Star, Manila Bulletin, CNN and Yahoo! News Philippines are all RS. AFAIK, they're not related to Mercury Drug (apparently the parent of this restaurant chain), and passes GNG.

Citing social media directly is not RS. FWIW, the article is guilty of doing that. RS citing social media is still RS. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which reminds me of when I had to do some research to clarify an erroneous assumption by media outlets regarding the app used by Kelly Rowland when she "texted" Nelly in "Dilemma". Android Authority cited a tweet from an ex-Symbian developer who pointed out that no, it wasn't Microsoft Excel on that Nokia. Back on topic, you do have a point about social media posts being cited by RSes as akin to on-the-spot interviews. The witness may or may not be right, but it's still reporting nonetheless.

What we do need is a "smoking gun" of some kind to firmly establish Tropical Hut's notability, e.g. if it's of seminal importance or more to it. Blake Gripling (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many smoking gun references, I've lost count. WP:RS can be occasionally wrong, but this doesn't make them no longer WP:RS. That doesn't happen here until proven otherwise (in other words, WP:RS interviewing random people about something doesn't make it wrong or not WP:RS, until another WP:RS makes it so). Now if WP:RS are wrong multiple times, time to list it at the WP:RSNB. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the merger proposal in more depth.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - although some sources are bad and some borderline, it does have a lot of coverage and these ones seem to be indepth [22], [23]. Zeddedm (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I was most persuaded by the in-depth coverage of shortages. This convinced me of the notability of the organization in its country. It's a weak keep because the other sources alone wouldn't meet the high standards that are explained in the above comments. Spudlace (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stew Peters[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:Notability Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 07:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as nominator has provided no evidence explaining their rationale. I may change my mind if it can be shown that notability isn't reached. Doug Weller talk 08:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose-What evidence supports the claim that this article does not meet notability? 2601:283:100:F9B0:5DB6:2167:28CA:5A2B (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:SIGCOV per the coverage in Daily Beast, The San Diego Union Tribune, CBS News, and Star Tribune. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:31, 11 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. Sandstein 09:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of bridges known for strikes[edit]

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

Delete per WP:SYNTH - material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Bruxton (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Transportation. Bruxton (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You made an argument for improving the article, not deleting it, since the article is for the most part a list of pages and not something that needs original research to exist. If the article lacked the intro section, it would probably have a similar level of usefulness. A good place to raise this issue would be the article's talk page. ForksForks (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any "conclusion" here. This article merely lists bridges that have received significant coverage on strikes. Not sure about worldwide but most struck bridge in the UK is certainly a notable topic, there is a large amount of coverage on it online. NemesisAT (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NemesisAT: Thanks you for the rationale. My opinion is that there is no "List of bridges known for strikes" in any article. One needs to do original research to piece it together. Also what is the criteria to make the list? Does a bridge make the list if it is struck twice or five times? Bruxton (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for butting in, please just tell me to leave it alone if you would rather I not contribute to the AFD due to my authorship.

The standard would be that the bridge is known specifically as a serial offender. So articles that generally mention that the bridge was struck would not be in scope. It would definitely be OR if we were trying to set a threshold for what bridges count, or trying to gather stats on how many times bridges get hit. This article[24] is a great example of what I'm talking about, where it documents the bridges notoriety and even gives examples of previous media coverage.

The point about being a composition of disparate things and not sourced from a central list is interesting, but based on articles I've reviewed this is not a common standard. See List of incidents at Walt Disney World and its companion articles. Generally its unreasonable to expect us to just copy a previous news outlets reporting to generate lists.

ForksForks (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly welcome and encouraged to participate here. I have really participated enough as a nominator and we can see what other editors think. At this point I would only be repeating myself. Bruxton (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One way of measuring it (and not entire objective, I appreciate) would be whether a bridge has been deemed notle (ie, has an article) and the sources on that article mostly focus on bridge strikes. NemesisAT (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this would be better if it was copied into the article about bridge strikes, not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Not really a merge, or is it? Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is about vehicles striking bridges, not labor strikes as I originally thought :) --MuZemike 12:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't present much beyond what is already discussed at Structure gauge#Accidents. While there is information about the individual bridges being prone to strikes, I fail to see adequate sources that discuss strike-prone bridges as a group or set to meet WP:LISTN. Without that, the inclusion criteria become unclear; it becomes subjective as to how many strikes over a certain period of time are needed to be for a bridge to be considered appropriate for this list, as alluded to by Bruxton above. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to reiterate that we cannot and should not be in the business of counting / gathering data. I would assert that multiple times certain bridges gain notoriety, in general, for their propensity for strikes. As noted in a lot of the articles cited, there are bridges which do far 'worse' but don't receive any attention. ForksForks (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That said this is a far better deletion argument than SYNTH ForksForks (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NLIST guides us that One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. So the question we need to answer is: are bridges being struck a notable thing? I think yes. And here's my sources to back that up:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/28626/bridgestrikesprofdrivers.pdf
https://dailygazette.com/2022/07/29/police-friday-morning-glenville-bridge-strikes-leads-to-citation-for-schenectady-driver/
Rail Human Factors: Supporting Reliability, Safety and Cost Reduction. (2013). United Kingdom: CRC Press. (has a section about bridge strikes)
https://trid.trb.org/view/653191
http://www.utrc2.org/sites/default/files/documents/Anil's%20Project%20spotlight_0113.pdf

In summary, this is a notable topic, covered in academic sources, news, and books. So it meets the criteria to have a list article on Wikipedia. CT55555 (talk) 02:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of the sources to which I have immediate access, #1 is literally a guide for truckers as to how they can prevent bridge strikes and does not mention any such bridges, and #2 is about one bridge and does not contain discussion of said bridge as part of a set. #5 does discuss the topic of bridge strikes and provides data, but does not indicate a set of examples, only naming one such bridge in the text. Do any of these sources contain lists of bridges that are prone to strikes? The question isn't whether bridge strikes are notable, per se; it's whether we as a community have adequate sources to curate a list of such bridges without resorting to synthesis. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you've been doing this longer than me, so I'll avoid making bold statements, noting I could be incorrect. But when I read at WP:NLIST The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable I understand that all that is needed here is to establish that bridge strikes in general are a notable thing. So I disagree, because I think the question is if bridge strikes are notable and I think he challenges of maintaining a list are real, valid concerns, but something to figure out on the talk pages, rather than a reason to delete.
Nonetheless, maybe these sources would help us reach agreement:
Sorry this is a bit of a scattergun list, but there are so many. I do note that this issue seems quite UK centric. CT55555 (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm convinced by CT55555's detailled reply. I'm not personally a fan of lists, and would rather have a more detailled "Bridge strike" article including a list of the worst offenders; but it seems a list is acceptable by policy, given the sources. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Barker (politician)[edit]

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

Two editors have prodded the article because the person does not meet out WP:NPOL guideline. The person placed fifth in a Republican primary. They reached the office of Treasurer for the Quapaw nation which has 13,000-acres of territory and only 3,240 (2011) enrolled tribal members. I am not sure that the treasurer office has any equivalence with national legislative bodies. Bruxton (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Oklahoma. Bruxton (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hi all, I'm going to copy my comments from the talk page below for ease of access. The main reason I think this article should meet WP:NPOL is because I think being an elected official of a federally recognized tribe meets WP:NPOL. I know the policy is silent on tribal governments and their politicians entirely, but they function more similar to a state government than a local government so I think it's reasonable to argue that the policy should include tribal elected officials. The treasurer office is part of the legislative body of the Quapaw Nations government. I'd also like to repeat I think it's a misreading of WP:NPOL to cite the size of the government's jurisdiction or population as a reason its de-facto unnotable.--TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:WP:NPOL is in favor of including "Politicians ... who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels." In the United States, federally recognized tribes often function in roles equivalent to state governments (having 3 branches of gov, exercising civil and criminal jurisdiction over territory, being elected democratically by voters) and their elected politicians should fall under "similar systems of government." Given that, I think Barker actually meets WP:NPOL. He's an elected official of the Quapaw Nation and that should meet WP:NPOL. Additionally, the Quapaw Nation has 6 people in their category, Category:Quapaw, expanding coverage is appropriate. His page is of similar length and source quality of other tribal politicians (see Milton Bluehouse Sr.). Category:Navajo Nation politicians has categories for Tribal Councilors and judges, similar coverage for other tribal nations should be in line with wiki guidelines.--TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Edit: added signature later, original comment 04:29, 23 July 2022‎[reply]
- Comment:I wouldn't go as far to argue they are equivalent of the United States federal government, but for WP:NPOL purposes I think they're the equivalent of state/provincial office. Focusing on the size of the tribe by population or territory I think is a mistake for WP:NPOL application since there are countries smaller than the Quapaw Nation (see Niue and Vatican City). We also don't enforce size requirements for states- Wyoming has 9,000 voters in each state house district, but elected officials to the Wyoming House of Representatives still meet WP:NPOL (This article has more sourcing and content than say Jim Roscoe of Wyoming). The logic of why WP:NPOL applies to all state elected officials should be the same for tribal governments. Especially since they are sovereign nations with jurisdiction, branches of government, and territory. Expanding the Quapaw Nation's coverage on wikipedia is also probably good post McGirt v. Oklahoma, since the tribe is now exercising criminal jurisdiction again in its reservation. Additionally, federal provisions like Treatment as States (TAS) provisions mean that tribal officials like Barker get to write environmental policy usually reserved to state or federal governments. Wiki articles on not just Barker, but tribal elected officials in the United States should meet WP:NPOL in the same way state elected officials do. I totally understand the skepticism given his recent run for office which does not meet WP:NPOL, but I hope you WP:GOODFAITH and understand the creation of this article is motivated not by his recent run for office, but because he is a tribal elected official in Oklahoma and I'm trying to expand coverage of tribal governments as part of the Oklahoma wiki project. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the community has consistently interpreted WP:NPOL to include tribal officials (see Four Guns (judge closed as keep) and Charlotte Hallmark closed as redirect). I do not doubt the logic that TulsaPoliticalFan describes. With that being said, WP:NPOL is premised upon the fact that there is WP:V coverage about elected national and statewide legislators and officials. I cannot begin to assert that all tribal councilmembers meet WP:GNG, nor could I suggest that all principal leaders/chiefs would meet GNG. I do think there is enough coverage to describe the government of most tribal nations and include the list of officials who held offices in those nations (see Supreme Court of the Navajo Nation). --Enos733 (talk) 23:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing both of these previous AfDs. While the editors don't mention it in Charlotte Hallmark's RfD, I think it's interesting and worth noting that they were a state recognized tribal politician and not a federally recognized tribal official. Editors in the Four Guns AfD noted that they were a high ranking politician in a federally recognized tribe who had treaties with the United States as a sovereign nation. I don't want to be misconstrued as implying state recognized tribal officials don't meet WP:NPOL, I don't think I have an opinion on that right now. However, I do think federally recognized tribal officials do meet WP:NPOL and the conclusion of the Four Guns AfD seems to support that conclusion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per TulsaPoliticsFan. We need a more thorough discussion on how NPOL should apply to tribal officials, but let's err on the side of presuming notability for now. Happy to revist if consensus develops otherwise in re NPOL. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I fully agree with Presidentman about erring on the side of presumed notability until a consensus can be reached regarding how WP:NPOL should be applied to tribal officials. For the time being, the well-formulated points made by TulsaPoliticsFan make a reasonable case for keeping the article intact. Sal2100 (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an elected official of a sovereign tribe. GregJackP Boomer! 17:50, 6 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. Withdrawn. (PS: I didn't realize from the map that most of Africa could actually see the eclipse. You learn something new everyday.) (non-admin closure) —VersaceSpace 🌃 14:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of June 28, 1889[edit]

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

Events like this are usually considered notable under the assumption that coverage is likely to exist for them, but I highly doubt that this 1889 solar eclipse, which peaked in an ocean near Madagascar, has generated any coverage, let alone enough to warrant an article. Also, much of the information present in the article has nothing to do with this particular eclipse. —VersaceSpace 🌃 06:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. —VersaceSpace 🌃 06:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm puzzled by the nomination because this sort of phenomenon would receive much press coverage in those days. Searching for "annular eclipse" in 1889 on newspapers.com leads to many hits but I was only able to clip two (presumably not the best before my subscription ran out!).[25][26] Newspaperarchive.com is new to me and is also available on the Wikipedia Library but I can't see if it is possible to make clippings. Why not try again to see what you can find? Thincat (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a major eclipse across southern Africa, clearly in the historical record. I agree with User:Thincat, that more could be added from old newspaper articles. Tom Ruen (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's more than notable enough, it might need more sources though. Zombles - Talk to me 14:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20 ans, barakat![edit]

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

This movement is not notable, as shown by lack of sources with depth. The "Algerian Family Code", which this movement is reacting to, is also not a notable topic. Obermallen (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Algeria. Shellwood (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No French sources, their website looks like it hasn't been updated since the early 2000s (most links they post are from 2006 or before) and I don't find many of the links useful for our purposes. They talk about the law, not about this call to action. Scattered mentions (about one a year) found for people where where part of the movement, nothing beyond a one-line mention each time. Oaktree b (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm only finding passing mentions, e.g. here – nothing significant. I would like to add that I disagree that the Algerian Family Code fails notability as well, as inferred by the nominator. But we are not discussing that article here. --LordPeterII (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OxRecs DIGITAL[edit]

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

I created this over a decade ago. At the time I had a good-faith belief that it was notable, but looking at it now and googling it I no longer believe it is. It's just had a PROD declined, so I can't speedy it. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and England. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I deprodded this because the label has several reviews in classical music journals of its releases, which indicates possible notability. However, I can't find substantial coverage of the label itself, and have done a fairly extensive search. I'd like to be able to change my !vote, but WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid reason for keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above but should have been prodded guys c'mon Andre🚐 22:46, 8 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. AfD has no common law. As much as people are pointing to other AfDs, they have no influence on the outcome of this one. Further, "keep so we can have an RfC elsewhere" is a rather weak argument. While this discussion is almost unanimous, these flaws led me to this close. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Saros 110[edit]

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

In the history of this saros cycle, no solar eclipse has ever been recorded. At present, most of the sources are mentioned in passing, or some pure data, failed GNG. Q 𝟤 𝟪 07:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request - Can we centralized all this discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar Saros 162? ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my reasoning at the AfD for solar Saros 162 (which closed "keep"), which I will reproduce here. The rationale for deleting or redirecting individual eclipse articles has been, so far, that they can be included in these list pages; it needlessly complicates things to start rummaging through the list pages themselves. As has been said, there is a large list of these cycles in the navbox, as they are all equal in the sense of being verifiably extant (whether they are ongoing, have ceased, or have not yet begun). Since it's possible to accurately predict eclipses thousands of years into the future, and the human race has successfully done so for hundreds (if not thousands) of years, it seems like it would be trivial to find adequate sourcing here. There's simply no chance of this not happening: the only thing that could cause it not to happen involves the literal destruction of the Earth, and if that happens, I don't think it matters whether Wikipedia had an article on it. jp×g 09:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar Saros 162 ~Kvng (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JPxG's thorough reasoning. (I have copy-pasted this reasoning from Solar Saros 160.) I !voted for delete on the individual eclipse articles because all that detail seemed a bit gratuitous, but these list articles condense that information more digestibly. Our first pillars states that Wikipedia has aspects of "specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". I believe this kind of high-level information on future eclipses falls in there. And indeed, WP:CRYSTAL does not really apply. Ovinus (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a List of saros series for solar eclipses article. I disagree with the arguments for a keep, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. By itself it is not even close to satisfying notability requirements per WP:GNG, with effectively only a single reference consisting solely of data and images. Praemonitus (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Praemonitus: This article is already a list. In fact, many individual articles about eclipses were previously at AfD and merged up into articles about their respective Saros series. jp×g 06:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: The fact that this article is a list is irrelevant to my point. The Saros as a range can be a row in a table, and such a table can be made notable. Praemonitus (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying here boils down to two things, basically -- first of all, AfD is not a process where the creation of new articles is carried out, and second of all, existing consensus from a number of previous discussions established that these lists were a suitable merge target for the information in sub-articles. People !voted to merge the articles and include their content in lists, not to delete the information from Wikipedia entirely (which is what would happen in this case, per List of saros series for lunar eclipses). jp×g 16:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Delete: it fails to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One can legitimate debate how to organize information about the Saros cycles, but AfD'ing individual articles is not the way to do it. Tercer (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, per Tercer. This needs a thorough discussion, but a centralized one (like Kvng suggested); it doesn't make sense if we now delete one or two articles, and keep some others. --LordPeterII (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. AfD has no common law. As much as people are pointing to other AfDs, they have no influence on the outcome of this one. Further, "keep so we can have an RfC elsewhere" is a rather weak argument. While this discussion is almost unanimous, these flaws led me to this close. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Saros 160[edit]

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

Too early and NOTDATA. Q 𝟤 𝟪 07:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request - Can we centralized all this discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar Saros 162? ~Kvng (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my reasoning at the AfD for solar Saros 162 (which closed "keep"), which I will reproduce here. The rationale for deleting or redirecting individual eclipse articles has been, so far, that they can be included in these list pages; it needlessly complicates things to start rummaging through the list pages themselves. As has been said, there is a large list of these cycles in the navbox, as they are all equal in the sense of being verifiably extant (whether they are ongoing, have ceased, or have not yet begun). Since it's possible to accurately predict eclipses thousands of years into the future, and the human race has successfully done so for hundreds (if not thousands) of years, it seems like it would be trivial to find adequate sourcing here. There's simply no chance of this not happening: the only thing that could cause it not to happen involves the literal destruction of the Earth, and if that happens, I don't think it matters whether Wikipedia had an article on it. jp×g 09:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar Saros 162 ~Kvng (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JPxG's thorough reasoning. I !voted for delete on the individual eclipse articles because all that detail seemed a bit gratuitous, but these list articles condense that information more digestibly. Our first pillars states that Wikipedia has aspects of "specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". I believe this kind of high-level information on future eclipses falls in there. And indeed, WP:CRYSTAL does not really apply. Ovinus (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Merge into a List of saros series for solar eclipses article. I disagree with the arguments for a keep, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. By itself it is not even close to satisfying notability requirements per WP:GNG, with effectively only a single reference consisting solely of data and images. Praemonitus (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Praemonitus: This article is already a list. In fact, many individual articles about eclipses were previously at AfD and merged up into articles about their respective Saros series. jp×g 06:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: The fact that this article is a list is irrelevant to my point. The Saros as a range can be a row in a table, and such a table can be made notable. Praemonitus (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Praemonitus: There is no such target article -- a page has to exist before other pages can be merged into it. jp×g 10:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: There is a List of saros series for lunar eclipses article, and there's no reason why there can't be a similar one for the Sun. Praemonitus (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Praemonitus, it is disrespectful to ask for other's work to be deleted just because you don't like the way it is organized. ~Kvng (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: Please read WP:5P4 and respect my PoV. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Praemonitus: What I'm saying here boils down to two things, basically -- first of all, AfD is not a process where the creation of new articles is carried out, and second of all, existing consensus from a number of previous discussions established that these lists were a suitable merge target for the information in sub-articles. People !voted to merge the articles and include their content in lists, not to delete the information from Wikipedia entirely (which is what would happen in this case, per List of saros series for lunar eclipses). jp×g 16:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Thanks for your clarification. I have updated my vote accordingly. What I'm wondering is what is the cut-off line for this string of articles? This one doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, so is the sequence now allowed to keep on going ad infinitum? That makes no sense. Praemonitus (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that usually, AfD is not a process where new articles are created, but this isn't always or necessarily the case. Sometimes we create an article on a book while discussing the author, for example, because it is more clear that the book is notable than that the author is. A page on an obscure mathematical constant was deleted, which prompted the creation of a draft on a broader topic around it, which eventually became an article. It's an unusual outcome, but not one forbidden by any grand principle. XOR'easter (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This needs a thorough discussion, but a centralized one (like Kvng suggested); it doesn't make sense if we now delete one or two articles, and keep some others. --LordPeterII (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. At least for now. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Saros 159[edit]

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

GNG failed: WP:UPCOMING and WP:NOTINTERNET. Q 𝟤 𝟪 07:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request - Can we centralized all this discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar Saros 162? ~Kvng (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my reasoning at the AfD for solar Saros 162 (which closed "keep"), which I will reproduce here. The rationale for deleting or redirecting individual eclipse articles has been, so far, that they can be included in these list pages; it needlessly complicates things to start rummaging through the list pages themselves. As has been said, there is a large list of these cycles in the navbox, as they are all equal in the sense of being verifiably extant (whether they are ongoing, have ceased, or have not yet begun). Since it's possible to accurately predict eclipses thousands of years into the future, and the human race has successfully done so for hundreds (if not thousands) of years, it seems like it would be trivial to find adequate sourcing here. jp×g 09:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar Saros 162 ~Kvng (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a List of saros series for solar eclipses article. I disagree with the arguments for a keep, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. By itself it is not even close to satisfying notability requirements per WP:GNG, with effectively only a single reference consisting solely of data and images. Praemonitus (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Praemonitus: This article is already a list. In fact, many individual articles about eclipses were previously at AfD and merged up into articles about their respective Saros series. jp×g 06:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: The fact that this article is a list is irrelevant to my point. The Saros as a range can be a row in a table, and such a table can be made notable. Praemonitus (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Praemonitus, there is no List of saros series for solar eclipses to merge this article into. Did you mean a different article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: There are multiple "Solar Saros ###" up for deletion. I'm just suggesting to create an article similar to List of saros series for lunar eclipses where they can be merged. Praemonitus (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article has to exist before an AFD discussion be closed as a merger to it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. This needs a thorough discussion, but a centralized one (like Kvng suggested); it doesn't make sense if we now delete one or two articles, and keep some others. --LordPeterII (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technology for peace[edit]

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

Poorly written, and absolutely not notable enough for an article. Obermallen (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Cyprus. Shellwood (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any proof for notability, and after reading it I come away still not quite sure what the significance is. Zombles - Talk to me 14:43, 5 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 Adam Saltsman. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finji[edit]

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

After searching, I don't see a pass of WP:NCORP. There are many reviews of their games but little independent coverage about the company itself. [27], [28], [29], and [30] are SIGCOV but none are remotely independent, all being based on interviews with the company's founder(s). "Last Chance Media" doesn't seem to turn up much either, although there is the non-independent [31].

The number of notable games published by this company gives me pause, but WP:NCORP is stringent for good reasons. Ovinus (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and United States of America. Ovinus (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Adam Saltsman per WP:ATD. He is the director and founder of the studio. Granted, it is very unclear whether Saltsman is notable either, but that can be decided later and I have no qualms about the redirect's later deletion if that is the case. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Zxcvbnm. Not sure why this was on the request page.Timur9008 (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I AGF and draftified the page when it was first created, but it had been moved back into mainspace without any improvements to the sourcing or prose, so maybe this article creation is promotionally motivated. I agree that it doesn’t meet WP:NCORP, let alone GNG. The company has not produced that many notable games, they can easily be tracked with a category tag for Finji. Haleth (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apologies for my misunderstanding and newness with this process.. I saw the request for the page on the Video Games wikiproject, so I attempted to start writing, but I realized that I couldn't find notable sources. That being said, the games Chicory and Tunic are two relatively large releases published by Finji with additional development provided by the team. I do understand that the lack of sources is problematic. I did add some notable sources to the talk page, which might be useful for building it out. Pizzarush (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to Adam Saltsman#Finji, per above. Nothing to merge. czar 22:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Zxcvbnm Fails WP:NCORP. Too early for a separate page. Kazanstyle (talk) 09:04, 10 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!} 05:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Ting[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. No inherent notability in the positions he has held. LibStar (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the positions described would make the subject notable. There are other David Tings who might be notable, but this one isn’t. Mccapra (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What does "head of office" mean in terms of the EU commission? Would it count for NPOL #1? Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No not an NPOL pass. It’s like “chief of staff” or “general manager”. Mccapra (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, delete for lack of notability. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:04, 10 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:A7 and WP:G11. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 07:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kew OhSo (artist)[edit]

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

Kew OhSo (artist)

Biography of a living person that was written to praise its subject rather than to describe him neutrally, but does not establish general notability. Nothing in this article describes the sort of significant coverage of the subject by reliable sources that would establish general notability. The title Kew OhSo has already been ECP-create-protected due to repeated recreation, so that creation with a disambiguation phrase is an attempt to game the naming of the article. The article has been reference-bombed, but does not speak for itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Music, Anime and manga, Internet, and New York. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lots of links but sources don't seem reliable. Andre🚐 03:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can I fix the errors; if they keep removing the article? Every time I try to fix the article, the Wikipedia search for its existence says its not there...so how can I fix those errors, if whoever keeps removing it? Omni Maximum (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: I've gone ahead and nominated this article for speedy deletion and SALTing. A Google search with his name in quotes brings up a measly 10 results. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Do I not have any rights to edit an article that have errors? I should just straight up get " Speedy Delete" and no rights to edit an error? also what is salting? cause I don't see that in any Wikipedia search engine, other than Salt for seasoning; I also never had my article in Google search, cause it never shows up. Omni Maximum (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you simply let me fix the errors on the article, instead of removing it and labeling me wrongful things that's against Wikipedia; that I have no intentions of doing? All I have to do is edit; that's what Wikipedia is for...editing and upgrading...but I get no chances in doing any of that...instead I keep getting label in a bad light by you and Praxidicae. After moving user to " article " and title it Kew OhSo, the article I'm making; every time I even try to edit something that's off, I get a " Speedy Delete ", out of nowhere; its like I'm not welcomed to do anything... If I make an article please review what I need to edit; instead of removing the article; that's the only way an article can be done right; when its fixed; once you remove the article, how can it fix? Let me do what's right and edit what's wrong. Omni Maximum (talk) 19:15, 5 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamayo Akiyama[edit]

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

This person doesn't appear to be notable. Obermallen (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Anime and manga, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to pass WP:CREATIVE The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Although the pass isn't as clear as it first seems as some of her works may have their own articles, but two are poor articles with no citations. Two are however decent. I've not checked the Japanese sources, but assuming good faith. CT55555 (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to CLAMP~~. Keep - In searches online and in the WP library, I found one book review (Publishers Weekly, 2006), a mention at p. 98 of her as 'the only ex-CLAMP member to have made an impact on the Western market' in The Rough Guide to Manga (2009), and a 2011 mention in an Anime News Network post, i.e. "Some of the early members, notably Leeza Sei and Tamayo Akiyama, left the group for careers as solo manga-ka, but none have been a fraction as successful as the four women who stuck together." The article includes wikilinks to Mouryou Kiden and Hyper Rune, which have no sources, Secret Chaser, which includes a review (IGN, 2012) identifying her as a former CLAMP member, ~~what appears to be~~ a ~~crowd-sourced~~ review also referencing her former work with CLAMP, a French-language capsule review for Vol. 2 noting her CLAMP background, and an Anime News Network announcement. The other wikilinked publication in the article is Zyword, which does not include the PW review noted above, but in its article has the Amazon page and the book itself as references, and an Anime News Network review of Vol. 1 which describes her as a CLAMP alumni. At this time, there appears to be ~~support for a redirect to CLAMP, but insufficient~~ support for a standalone article per WP:NAUTHOR/WP:CREATIVE ~~or WP:BASIC/WP:GNG~~. Beccaynr (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC) - comment and !vote updated, per below Beccaynr (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the Mania review is crowdsourced and unreliable; as per WP:ANIME/RS#Situational, Mania is considered to be a reliable source for reviews outside of the Maniacs section, which that article was not published in, thus it is a reliable source. When combined with the IGN review, that is two reviews, thus making it meet WP:NBOOK. Zyword also meets NBOOK (at least you don't seem to be denying it does). The other series with articles are old, so they may have coverage in older English or French sources (which I will look through and see what, if anything, I can find. EDIT: Found this review in French and this review in German for Mouryou Kiden, which both seem fairly substantial, thus making it meet NBOOK). But even without those two, I think that between two notable series and some independent articles about her other series, she at least comes close to meeting WP:NAUTHOR 3. Link20XX (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the WP:ANIME/RS#Situational link - I was trying to assess the site based on its appearance as a crowd-sourced fan site - the WP:ANIME link says, "Editors must be particularly careful the reviews are from AnimeOnDVD/Mania staffers and NOT from the user-submitted "Maniacs" section. When searching for reviews, those that have a URL format of http://www.mania.com/*title*_*somenumbers*.html and that follow the original AoD review format are written by staff reviewers and are considered reliable and usable for articles. "Maniac" reviews written by users which are not RS can be detected by the lack of structured format and a URL in the form of http://www.mania.com/*username*/review/*title*_*somenumbers*.html", and this url does not have a username in the title. I will adjust my comment and !vote. Beccaynr (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comment above; having three notable series is enough to meet WP:NAUTHOR 3 in my opinion. While Hyper Rune has an article and was licensed in English and French, I couldn't find any good coverage online and considering how fancrufty it is, I don't think it's worth saving. Link20XX (talk) 04:53, 6 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!} 05:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Mullen[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an unelected political figure, not adequately sourced as having a strong notability claim. The claim here is that he's a former chief of staff to the speaker of a provincial legislature, which is not an "inherently" notable role that guarantees a free pass into Wikipedia -- he would have to pass WP:GNG on his sourceability to warrant a Wikipedia article.
But there are just two footnotes here, both of which are relatively short and unsubstantive sources that just cover him in the context of having briefly been in the news for investigating allegations of other people's impropriety, in other words doing his job. For the record, one of the two people he investigated was formally charged and the other was not, but this article isn't telling you that, and there are WP:BLP problems arising from its failure to tell you that — this was most likely created as a WP:COATRACK to get the criminal allegations into Wikipedia for "naming and shaming" purposes without actually trying to write WP:PERP-failing BLPs of the people Mullen investigated.
This simply isn't of enough enduring significance to justify an article that's this unsubstantive and minimally sourced. Bearcat (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Chief of staff to a provincial speaker is not a role that would make him notable and the scandal-related stuff won’t stand up a bio on its own. Mccapra (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Svirka[edit]

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

A one-sentence stub with only an offline Russian-language source. The creator has not edited Wikipedia since June 19, 2008. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- no valid deletion reason given. Stubs are not grounds for deletion. Offline sources are not grounds for deletion. Non-English sources are not grounds for deletion. The fact that the creator has not edited Wikipedia since 2008 is not a grounds for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 05:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article gives reason to presume that WP:GEOLAND is not met, and the AfD nomination makes no case otherwise. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - None of the reasons given are grounds for deletion, article meets WP:GEOLAND. Spokoyni (talk) 08:54, 5 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FiXT[edit]

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

Fluff piece, sources are unreliable, some are Twitter disguised as something else, Facebook, etc. Doesn't pass GNG by the most basic criteria, having multiple reliable sources cover them in a significant way. Lot of minor stuff, nothing that passes WP:RS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Internet. jp×g 03:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there were a lot of primary sources used, which I cleaned up. I have found additional sources that are good. Check THIS and THIS. A number of bands on teh lable also have Wiki pages, so it seems to be a popular label.Zeddedm (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more round.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 01:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Weak) Delete: The Hawkeye piece is good, but under WP:NCORP there should be multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources for a company to be notable and I don't see evidence of more than that one, an indication of non-notability (especially a US-based modern-day company). I wouldn't call the edm.com piece significant coverage about the company itself (it's a few paragraphs about its subsidiary). I'm also slightly skeptical of its independence given [32], which states it covers the music of labels it partners with and I'm not sure of how to check whether FiXT has partnered with them. The rest of the sources cited in the article are either interviews, sourced to the company, non-significant, or is a press release. As to its bands, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED (the label may not be notable even if some of its artists are). I'm open to being convinced otherwise. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 20:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient number of artists and media coverage to meet WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important indie labels, which is a better yardstick than NCORP. 04:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete under the G5 criterion. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dp210. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gevherhan Sultan (daughter of Murad IV)[edit]

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

Gevherhan Sultan

Article with no references that are both verifiable and reliable. This article appears identical to a previous article on the same person that was created in article space and moved to draft space for better sources. So there is already a draft, and this article can be deleted to allow improvement of the existing draft. The first two appear to be books, but do not identify the title (which is why the previous article was draftified). The third is a web site that is probably user-generated content. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Turkey. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no claim of notability. Existing isn't notability. I'm happy to reconsider if someone can explain why this person is notable and prove that they are. CT55555 (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has no reason to exist, really.Obermallen (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't even be the first Ottoman Princess without a page so its fine. Etoilespourvous (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of the Philippines Visayas Tacloban College#Student organizations as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 00:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 August 13

UP Halcyon[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, no refs from Google News, Google, Books and News Archives. WP:PROD removed by User:Jax MN while calling me a deletionist while being at it.

IMO I don't think Filipinos such as myself and our organizations should be patronized and must be treated equally in the eyes of Wikipedia policy. (See Talk:UP Halcyon) Lenticel ^(talk) 00:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero sources found, no sources used in the article. Little to nothing by which to judge it. Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, zero sources. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Jax MN (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is tagged to request citations. I agree these are lacking. It is otherwise well-written, and non-promotional. I see no problem in letting it continue to gather improvements as it is a work in progress. We have the space. With several hundred graduates and a 17 year history at the school, professional pages showing membership by its graduates, an updated and busy Facebook page, the organization appears valid. To support the need for citations I've written to the group, asking pointedly for these, and have updated the official website link on the article. To suddenly push an AfD here is arbitrary, and inconsistent with the collaborative process of building this resource. Jax MN (talk) 15:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an organization exists does not mean it is notable. And notability is what WP:AFD is about. Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability_fallacies to understand what arguments establish notability and which do not. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:CCBF:2541:EADD:F590 (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.
Comment The infobox says they have 200 members. How much coverage would they get? Dream Focus 16:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because an organization has a facebook page doesn't mean it is notable. The concerns about sourcing outweigh however many graduates this college has had or how long it has existed. See WP:ITSOLD and WP:BIG. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:CCBF:2541:EADD:F590 (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you, Anon, for commenting. I don't know the reason for your anonymity, but assume good faith. --As I hope you do for me. I am quite aware of notability guidelines. I have two concerns over Lenticel's PROD, then AfD. First, that this is an abrupt effort against an article that has slow traffic, but is properly formed and non-promotional. I prefer we continue to allow it to gather improvements, versus killing it. But I completely agree it needs citations. My second concern is over many of the Fraternity and Sorority articles coming out of the Philippines, which, like UP Halcyon lack sources. We (experienced F&S volunteers) know that Philippine schools have a robust fraternity and sorority culture. But these organizations are not promoted by school portals nor do they get much press -- in English, at least. The nation has almost 200 languages and dialects, thirteen of which have a million or more speakers. Do publications in any of these languages offer citations? When we search for citations in JSTOR it appears we are looking at English sources (correct me if I am wrong.) To ignore the other languages would be unfair, and dismissive of those Philippine cultural/linguistic groups. (Thus Lenticel, I do not intend to be patronizing in any way. Sorry if that was how you read this.) With all this in mind, it is why I asked for help from the Rescue Squadron team. I have no experience with Cebuano, Tagalog, etc. Can we simply fix this article, instead of killing it? Jax MN (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of the Philippines Visayas Tacloban College#Student organizations. Fails WP:NORG per nom. The org can be covered in the target article. SBKSPP (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reasonable solution. Rublamb (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment several have voted, perhaps prematurely. I just updated the article with two references from the university itself, proving validity and notability. Again, I urge collaboration, and positive effort to improve these articles. As admins, it sure is easy to kill things, but I believe we serve our readers by creating, and improving. I can see no ill-intent in the creation of this article, it just needed some work. Jax MN (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The added references are neither independent nor show notability. The first reference is literary awarded for following campus rules. As for the second reference, an award by your own institution does not show independence nor notability as its recognition is limited on just one campus. An acceptable notable student org award in the country would be the Philippine Quill Award. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any references whatsoever that meet WP:NORG's criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See the most recent version of the article. The two references I added are indeed independent, (i.e.: not controlled by the organization), and show that, to the school and its community, the organization is notable. The school recognized this particular group out of all other student groups with their inaugural award as a valued contributor. The organization did not control that vote.

Fellow editors, I don't know what is motivating this rush to kill this article rather than to improve it. This is a small organization, but valid, notable to their community, and the article isn't just thin promotion like so many, many others. Killing it is an example of Deletionism, a harmful tendency within Wikipedia. Perhaps Lenticel, normally a reasonable contributor, has decided to fight this battle because he/she took offense at me for questioning the PROD. The other votes seem to me to be casual "me too" votes, without considering improvement or attempting to help. I think that a fair-minded editor would pause, and adjust their vote to !Keep. Jax MN (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote was made *after* you added the (only) two refs to the article. It was also made *after* you'd already pointed out the same fact to an earlier !vote. Why would you comment, as you did, when you could easily have checked the timestamps for my !vote. Your other comments have really nothing to do with AfD matters and seem a but pointy. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the two sources are too closely-linked to the mother organization of the subject, coming from UP Diliman itself. That runs afoul to WP:INDEPENDENT. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you, JWilz12345. You raise an important point, also alluded to by Dream Focus. The group operates without controversy, and without seeking publicity. They are not the subject of a scandal... Hence, they face a situation as do many of the "good" fraternities and sororities, in that they lack press coverage. Yet we've proven they are valid: they exist, and that they are notable to the college and its community: their awards. You've applied an overly broad interpretation of "Independent" here. The UP Halcyon group does not control what is on the College's website, nor vice-versa. The College was fully independent in its recognition of them.

This is a haphazard PROD, by a skilled admin who nevertheless does not have involvement with this category of organization articles. Rather than fix the page, he/she merely opted to kill it. I objected, and found two good sources. Cordially, I note that Wikipedia's rules regarding Deletion state that participants should have a reasonable level of [subject] competence, and elaborates on this, saying that "This means articles, categories or templates should not be nominated in a routine fashion, nor because one feels too lazy to check for sources, or if the content is still being built or improved." This is why I refrain from PRODing or voting on nominations regarding Australian Rules Football, or Rap Music. They're not in my sphere of competence. --What Lenticel may not know is that there are potentially 100,000 or 200,000 local fraternities that may desire a WP article. Our Project group itself only supports a few of these who meet a bar of inclusion (tenure over 10 years, usually a physical location, external references, etc.). The Halcyon group meets our bar of inclusion, which is very stringent, documented, and consistent.

I urge review of votes here, now that the page is improved with these references and clarifications. Jax MN (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to take a close look at our guidelines and especially WP:NORG's criteria for establishing notability. Since this is the third time you've commented after someone's !vote to mention that fact you've added references, you should also be aware of WP:BLUDGEON. You are not an inexperienced editors and so you should be aware we have various policies and guidelines. Since this is an organization, WP:NORG guidelines apply. There are two sections in particular - WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND which essentially mean that we require multiple references that provide in-depth and significant coverage on the topic (not students or members or events, but the actual organization) which contains original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Your first reference from University of the Philippines Visayas Tacloban College is a mention in a list. This is trivial coverage, fails CORPDEPTH. In addition, the university is affiliated with the organisation and this reference would also fail ORGIND. Your second reference from University of the Philippines Open University marks the 48th anniversity of UP Visayas Tacoblan College. This article has no attributed journalist/author so it could be argued it fails WP:RS as we don't know its origin. Leaving that aside, the topic organization has a mention-in-passing (one sentence) and has no in-depth information *about* the organization, fails CORPDEPTH. Bottom line, despite your urging and your protestations, you appear to misunderstand the criteria for notability and you are obviously closely connected with the org. Wikipedia is not a forum for promotion or advertising or to be manipulated for "awareness", nor is it a Yellow Pages or some sort of directory. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the subject is marginally notable and the article is thin on sources, but what tips me in favor of keeping is that this group won an award from the university. That does make the group notable within student organizations in the Philippines. Also, the article is well written for a starter. Finally, I believe diversity is important within the Wikipedia community. Sometimes that means understanding the challenges in finding what we consider traditional sources and/or English language sources. Would you even know whether or not a Philippine source was major or minor if there were more sources? The bottom line is that the university is a legitimate and independent source. It is credible and important in context of this topic. Keep the article--encourage the authors improve it and bring more topics to Wikpedia.Rublamb (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- We need to see an argument based on our policies/guidelines, not opinion. The award (from the university they're affiliated with) is insignificant. The rest of your argument (award=notable, well written article, diversity is important, challenges for non-English sourcing, bottom line plea, move along nothing to see) is opinion and not based on guidelines, etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Quoting from WP:JUSTAPOLICY "While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why." That is what I did--explain my reasoning. Sorry if my explanation did not match your opinion. So let me cite with guidelines to back my thoughts. WP:SURMOUNTABLE I agree that this article needs more sources to meet the criteria for notability. However, this problem is surmountable because with more time for its editors to explore non-English sources, Philippine source, and non-digital sources, this article can be improved. I am not using the "sources must exist somewhere" defense, but rather my professional understanding of content seeking in countries like the Philippines, along with the credibility of the existing sources. WP:ITSLOCAL This is my primary defense, what you refer to as diversity. Quoting from ITSLOCAL, "Stating an article should be deleted because you and most of the world do not know about it is akin to the I've never heard of it argument. Many subjects are esoteric, meaning that only a small crowd is familiar with them. ...The same is true about subjects only of interest to those in a single city, town, or region. People who live outside the area who have never visited there or done any research on the area will obviously be unlikely to have ever heard of them. But Wikipedia is not limited to subjects that everyone in the world knows or will have a good chance of knowing. Being a global encyclopedia, Wikipedia can cover a wide range of topics, many of them pertaining to the culture of a single country, language, or an ethnic group living in one part of the world. The people living in a single city or town and everything they have built around them are likewise a culture and society of their own." WP:IGNORINGATD Ultimately, I recommended retaining this article at this time because GNORINGATD says "The fact that a topic is not notable is not, in and of itself, valid grounds for deleting a page, its content, or its history." At a minimum, @SBKSPP is correct that we should be recommending whether to keep or redirect/merge this content, rather than to simply delete. Rublamb (talk) 14:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rublamb, this is a great clarification. You've quoted extensively from an essay WP:ATA rather than our guidelines and to paraphrase, you're saying that it is likely that more sources exist and you also say that you rely primarily on ITSLOCAL. That section also says subject-specific notability standards in some areas of endeavour do require evidence that the sourceability is more than purely local — for instance, corporations and organizations have to meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORGDEPTH which applies here since this is an organization. Bottom line: we need to see sources or we need to at *least* have some confidence that sources are likely to exist. To date, the only sources originate from other organizations that are affiliated with the topic org. We have seen no indications that any other sources exist, or likely to exist. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just did a quick Google search and came up with several new sources which I added, including the only LGBTQ magazine in the Philippines, a division of the Philippine government, and a nationwide news outlet founded by by 2021 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Ressa. Also, more sources from the university itself. I think this proves my point that there is more out there to be found as I have yet to search newspapers. Rublamb (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's great you've added more sources, thank you. I think there's a misunderstanding in terms of what is required in order to establish notability though. I've summarised NCORP below.

This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply.

We require references that discuss the *organization* in detail. As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability - the quantity of coverage is irrelevant so long as we find a minimum of two. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the organization* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".

"Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is usually the criteria where most references fail. References cannot rely *only* on information provided by the organization - quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. Whatever is left over must also meet CORPDEPTH.

Looking at the new references (you added 6).

This from Philippine News Agency doesn't even mention the topic org, fails to establish notability, fails CORPDEPTH
This from the University website also doesn't even mention the topic org, fails to establish notability, fails CORPDEPTH
This from the LGBTQ magazine simply mentions the topic org by name, a mere mention-in-passing. It is not significant. Fails CORPDEPTH
This from Rappler is a list of organizations running various initiatives to provide relief from the aftermath of Typhoon Odette in December 2021. The list contains over 100 organizations of which the topic org is one. It is not significant, contains no in-depth information about the topic org (fails CORPDEPTH) and merely repeats information provided by the topic org (fails ORGIND).
This from the Dept of the Environment and Natural Resources is a mere mention-in-passing, is not significant, provides no detailed information about the topic org. Fails CORPDEPTH
Finally, this from the University of the Philippines website states that the "author" is the University Media and Public Relations Office. The publishing org is affiliated with the topic org. It does not provide any in-depth info, fails CORPDEPTH

None of those references come close to meeting NCORP's criteria for establishing notability. This isn't about proving that the topic organization exists. Mere mentions or inclusions in lists are classified as trivial coverage. Material produced and repeated in publications have no intellectual independence and fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood. Others were posting to delete UP Halcyon because there were no sources and nothing in Google. I proved both points to be incorrect, lending credence to my belief that there is a reasonable expectation that more references exist in sources from the Philippines. While I did not find an extensive article in my very quick scan of Google, the sources I found do qualify as independent and reliable. These citations back much of the previously unsourced content of the article, and also document the work undertaken by the organization which collectively builds a case for notability. For example, two of the sources I added prove that this group has partnered with the local city and a branch of the Philippine government on projects. Yes, I cited two articles that are not about the group, but they are about the award the group won (as in, is the award notable) and the group's founder (as in, is this group associated with anyone of importance and why does this name matter). One of my sources, that you say is just a list, includes a short paragraph about the Halcyon project and a graphic. I will repeat what @Jax MN wrote previously: a university and its student organizations are independent of each other. I used to work in a department of information and development for a small state university--student orgs, the alumni association, the university, the sports office, and even the library are not the same, have totally different PR staff, have their own social media, and rarely speak to each other. Saying that the university is not an independent source in this case would be like saying we cannot use the NCAA as a source on Kansas Jayhawks basketball because the KU is a member of the NCAA. Or that NASCAR cannot be used as a source on Kyle Busch because he participates in NASCAR races. Just like the Jayhawks and Busch cannot control what the larger organizations publish, UP Halcyon cannot control what the university PR office writes. As I have said several times, I agree that more sources are needed to prove notability--I think everyone posting here agrees on this point. I am just suggesting that we take a minute and consider that this group with more than 5K Facebook followers and the potential for extensive coverage fits the criteria to keep under development. At a minimum, its content should be merged rather than deleted. Rublamb (talk) 19:37, 11 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 02:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Vogl[edit]

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

Anton Vogl

There are no sources on the page and there is no information on Anton Vogl online apart from copy pasted articles from the Wikipedia article. This leads into the only other information on Vogl to be from Wikipedia clones which also do not present sources nor count as a source. Copyrightpower1337 (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Austria. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. this was deprodded, but no reason given. I haven't found any evidence of an "Anton Vogl", military officer, ever existing, and I'm giving up after having found Anton Vogl, present-day scientist, Anton Vogl, early 19th-century physician (see eg [33]), and Anton Vogl, early 19th-century historian (presumably not the same guy, but who knows - see [34]). Only the physician is indexed at DB (and no NDB article). I think it is safe to say that Anton Vogl, officer, did not, as the wikipedia article says, become "famous" for much of anything. -- asilvering (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above, can't find much of anything for this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It is always difficult to judge the quality of a stub. "Lieutenant Field Marshal" sounds like a variety of general; if so I would expect him to be notable. I would also expect there to be an article in the German WP: is there? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Feldmarschallleutnant was the equivalent of lieutenant-general in the Austro-Hungarian army. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and likely failing WP:V. I say "likely" only because I did find brief mention of a "Lieutenant Colonel Anton Vogl [who] took up post in 1796" of an Austrian cavalry regiment. Fighting Troops of the Austro-Hungarian Army, 1868-1914 - Page 112. The stub article has him being born in 1789, however, which would have made him seven years old when he took command, so he is not likely to be the same man and I can find no source showing an Anton Vogl of higher rank. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 15:34, 11 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.