< August 05	August 07 >

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

41, el hombre perfecto[edit]

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

No indication of significant coverage showing notability. Sources provided mention the film only briefly and provide no in-depth critical coverage. Nothing located on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Mexico. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:12, 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!} 23:57, 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 02:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samba Nova (AI)[edit]

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

Article about a company that lacks appropriate sourcing to meet the relevant guideline, WP:NCORP. The sources aren't independent in WP:ORGIND sense, as they are mostly fundraising announcemnets that provide no independent "opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject." ~Styyx^Talk? 23:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. ~Styyx^Talk? 23:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While this article content looks typical for start-up coverage (funding rounds, product proposition), the December 2020 article by Sally Ward-Foxton and the April 2021 Nicole Hemsoth article that I added as a reference are more substantial and could contribute to WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 16:27, 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!} 23:01, 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!} 23:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see anything that convinces me this passes WP:NCORP, the best is this more product-related article. Other than that, everything just seems to be about funding rounds. Jacona (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:44, 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 Vampire Academy#Main characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vampire Academy characters[edit]

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

Another long list of in-universe, unsourced cruft. Either delete it or cut it down and merge. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Lists. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see that the nominator has tried to trim, merge, or redirect, all of which are ATDs. As such, there's really nothing to do here that has proven to be un-fixable by regular editing. It's arguable that this should be closed per SK#1, since "List of X characters" where X is a clearly notable fictional franchise obviously has a redirect target. Jclemens (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is simple: I've been down this road before. I've tried to do the ATD's for other franchises with character listicles, only to have my efforts reverted by overzealous inclusionists who can't bear to see a single word of their lovingly detailed summaries altered. AfD has proven to be the only way to get this work done w/ proper community involvement. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep on the basis of nominator admitting zero effort to resolve perceived difficulties without resorting to deletion. Jclemens (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And when I do make the effort, people scream at me for "acting unilaterally" and "not seeking consensus," so what am I supposed to do exactly? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If an edit you make is reverted (and this includes you making a redirect or requesting a speedy deletion or prod), you may find it better to go to the talk page and start a discussion to try to get consensus for what you are doing. See WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Or, of course, you could raise the matter in advance on the talk page if you anticipate opposition. Thincat (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. Don't see a reason for deletion. Agletarang (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens also mentioned the main Vampire Academy article as a redirect target. Since that article already has a character list, any thoughts on redirecting this article over there? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to the main article. Vampire Academy#Main characters and Bloodlines (book series)#Characters seem to provide sufficient overview of the main characters relative to the weight required to understand the context of the articles. There are no sources showing the grouping establishes notability to meet GNG or LISTN. This is not a valid offshoot article because it has not been shown that the main articles are overburdened by necessary contextual plot information. Most of what is here is irrelevant for the purposes of a general encyclopedia, so it can be tossed without any issue. ATD concerns seem moot when there is no relevant sourced content to salvage. TTN (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. As written, it's pure plot summary fancruft. It's time to start cleaning that part of the stable too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As WP:ATD. Pure plotcruft and FANDOM material that is unsuitable as an article unless RS are added as well. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see consensus here but the Keep votes aren't grounded in policy-based reasons and seem like a reaction to the suggestion of deletion. Any more support for redirecting this article to Vampire Academy?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, since there is an obvious appropriate place to redirect to. De Guerre (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vampire Academy#Main characters - While character lists can be valid spinout articles on a piece of fiction, that is not an automatic guarantee that there should be one. In this case, a completely unsourced list of overly detailed plot information is not an appropriate spinout, and should be Redirected back to the main article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this is not a valid spinout, as it is missing WP:NOTABILITY in the form of WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. Jontesta (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment List of X characters derive notability from the fictional franchise; Rorscacma is correct. However, the second part of the argument presumes that there are no sources for any of the characters and that no clean-up could fix it. In fact, there is simply no evidence either has been attempted. Jclemens (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's more to it than just notability. Per WP:WAF, fictional subjects should be covered in terms of their real-world cultural impact and RS must be found w/ an eye towards showcasing same. This is what separates WP from the countless fan wikis which proliferate online.

Along that same line, why is everyone is so quick to point out all the ways they think an article could be improved, but no one actually does it? I swear, AfD causes WP:BEBOLD to go right out the window. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per Piotr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:55, 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. Sandstein 06:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keitaro Okubo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGYMNASTICS and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article doesn’t fail WP:NGYMNASTICS as Okubo meets the criteria Won a senior individual medal at an elite international competition, particularly a World Cup silver. WP:GNG is also met as the FIG link describes the gymnast’s information directly & in details, & FIG is a reliable source & independent of the gymnast himself. NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet GNG with the sources in the article. Those are not significant coverage because they are one sentence each about him. Significant coverage is usually 2-3 paragraphs that go in depth about the subject. May meet the SNG though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 links, not 2. The another one is all about him. NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 11:39, 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!} 22:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails WP:GNG. Also, I agree that the sources in the article do not provide significant coverage on the subject. Fats40boy11 (talk) 11:10, 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!} 23:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NGYMNASTICS. LibStar (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 keep. I'm surprised but the consensus here is that this individual's coverage meets WP:NBASIC Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Jiroux[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating for deletion as all but none of these sources are reliable and don't show sustained notability. The sources that do qualify as reliable (The Hollywood Reporter) are about a lawsuit for an un-notable song and Wired source placed emphasis on Miley Cyrus. Trillfendi (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim. Borderline but appears to barely qualify for notability. Andrevan@ 19:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is plenty of coverage. Also per WP:BASIC "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Zeddedm (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are unreliable though… (AXS link doesn’t work, IMDb not reliable, “livingly.com” not reliable, Refinery29 is a blog, “blogtalkradio.com” not reliable and a dead link, “lifestyle.one” redirects to heatworld which is not reliable, “celebuzz.com” not reliable and also a dead link, J-14 is a gossip magazine for children and the link is dead, jsonline [Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel] simply had her name on a setlist with about 300 or 400 other names, “tapsongz.com” not reliable, “thatdrop.com” not reliable, “housem.nl” not reliable, “powerhouse.nl” link is unresponsive), and even if you take the 3 sources that qualify as notable, you can’t have an article with 3 sources and maybe 4 or 5 sentences (if that) actually about the subject. Trillfendi (talk) 22:45, 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!} 22:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There's plenty of coverage, but I'd want to see more independent secondary sources as per WP:SOURCE Majority of reliable notability that I see comes from Miley Cyrus--Littehammy (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous AFD resulted in this article becoming a redirect but it seems like there is more support for Keeping it and improving it on the 2nd AFD. More opinions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Don't know how much this helps, but Jiroux has some more accomplishments since her first AfD way back in 2008. Her work in choreography and music, such as it is, got some notice from relatively reliable sources (largely because of her Miley connection) as currently cited in the article. There is probably enough for a short stub article here, but fan trivia and social media-dependent sources need to be whacked. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the sources in the article I was able to find some significant coverage this Miley Cyrus autobiography, this discussing their podcast, this one discussing their friendship, this one going into a good bit of depth. Here is a book mention that is independent of Cyrus as well. I did try to search Newspapers.com and there were a lot of trivial mentions, mostly about a dance routine at some awards show and another where she had to release a statement about a fake rumor of Cyrus's death, but as far as newspaper coverage I couldn't find anything. Still, given the sources in the article (and yes I realize that half of them are absolute junk, I'm not including those) with the book references, I do think the article's subject meets the notability guidelines. It's not the strongest claim to notability and I feel like maybe it's borderline with WP:GNG, but it does meet WP:BASIC's criteria: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Even if the sources aren't the most in-depth pieces, they certainly aren't trivial mentions so WP:BASIC would support keeping this article. - Aoidh (talk) 13:34, 13 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 11:37, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Denk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable reality television contestant. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ohio. Bgsu98 (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two previous AFD discussions ended in "Keep" decisions but they were both 15 years ago. I'd like to see a current assessment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t imagine what about that article said “Keep me”… 🤷‍♂️ Bgsu98 (talk) 03:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a stub and information on Tyler Denk is hard to come by as he is not active on social media to my knowledge.

He is a recovered drug addict and a professional model who has appeared on CSI Miami and did an interview on Live with Kelly and Ryan, but other than that, information is hard to come by. Obviously, he is notable for winning a popular Reality Show, but does that truly merit a Wikipedia Page? Daybreak87 (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was kept before because editors saw some potential in the subject but the time has proven that there is not enough coverage. Azuredivay (talk) 07:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is not sufficient to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:54, 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 draftify. ✗plicit 12:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nellikathuruthi Kazhakam[edit]

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

Quite why I didn't go G1 with this, I don't know. Article is almost entirely indecipherable. "Nellikathuruthy Kazhakam is an important Kazhakam" - the word Kazhakham is linked to a 1996 film of that name. Where Nellikathuruthy Kazhakam is - and quite what it is, is not defined. It's certainly not defined in the sources presented, none of which actually mention Nellikathuruthy Kazhakam - the article is a neat little bit of OR/SYNTH - presented in such convoluted and gramatically poor English that it's hard to sort out quite what is happening here: "Problems that could not be solved in other poles would then reach this pocket" is a typical example. It's borderline gibberish, fails WP:GNG and needs to go to perhaps make way, one day, for an article about a well defined thing that is written well enough and sourced well enough to let the casual reader know quite what thing it is about. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, India, and Kerala. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmmm……. Wow! What on earth is this about? Mccapra (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC) about?[reply]

Comment - One of the refs ([1]) clarify that a kazhakham is a temple organization. --Soman (talk) 02:04, 25 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!} 22:28, 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!} 23:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify There may be a notable topic in here but at the moment this is little more than word salad and I can’t see how collaborative editing could improve it in its current state. The creator needs to do some work to give everyone else a basic starting point for contributing. Mccapra (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I will go with Mccapra. Article needs more work and Draftify is the good option. BBSTOP (talk) 05:06, 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 redirect to Mylo Xyloto. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Up with the Birds[edit]

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

Similar to its B-side U.F.O., the song is a fairly unremarkable release in terms of independent significant coverage, there doesn't seem to be any. Information could be (and is already contained) at parent album page. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 21:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 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!} 23:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mylo Xyloto - song does not appear to have independent notability from the album, which is certainly notable. Even in album reviews, mentions of the song are mostly trivial and there is not other coverage that would meet WP:GNG. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:29, 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 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!} 03:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Le Vaisseau[edit]

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

Article has been tagged with the ((unreferenced)) template since June 2008. I was unable to find any sources via the standard search options that were relevant to this centre.

The sole English language source is for an unrelated building with the same name in Issy-les-Moulineaux. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and France. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer If this article is deleted, a redirect to this article also exists at The vaisseau. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:13, 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!} 23:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’ve done a thorough search and added one ref. There’s a second news item but it’s paywalled. Apart from that there is nothing except the Vaisseau site itself and tourist “things to do in Strasbourg” sites so I’m not seeing any basis for notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:19, 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. (non-admin closure) 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Rapid[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

2 independent sources: both from 2015-16, and both about specific instances of domestic abuse, not the subject's career. Plus the "$2 mill to fuck Justin Bieber" story which has had no lasting coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Entertainment. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 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!} 23:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kbabej. Not fantastic sources, but enough for GNG. Thanks; I apparently can't find good sources on pornography. Ovinus (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC) Delete – No indication of significant coverage. Also noting that there are some BLP problems with the article, e.g. something about attempted sex with a minor sourced to Gay Star News. I've removed this last bit. Ovinus (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His domestic incidents have been covered by PinkNews, a green-level RS on WP:RSP (here). Queerty covered a marketing stunt where he offered Justin Bieber $2m to film with him (here). Bieber responded to the offer (here). Rapid then went on to make a Justin Bieber porn parody (here). Rapid's announcement he was retiring from porn was covered by The Gay UK, where he's called "prolific" (here). In the first ever Pornhub awards, Rapid was awarded "Top Gay Group Performer" (here). He is one of Men.com's most searched names (here). In Supersex: Sexuality, Fantasy, and the Superhero, Anna Peppard covers Rapid four times (snippets here). Observatoriog calls him "one of the most beloved personalities in the world of international gay porn" (here). --Kbabej (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Already discussed here: I keep for the same reasons. Keckel (talk) 11:49, 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 redirect to 2022 ASEAN Para Games. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Powerlifting at the 2022 ASEAN Para Games[edit]

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

Powerlifting at the 2022 ASEAN Para Games

This article has no references. It also refers to a future event (as stated in the parent article) and does not give enough details to be encyclopedic, as well as being too soon for a future event. The lede sentence incorrectly uses the past tense. This article has no encyclopedic content. It does not belong in article space. Not moving to draft space because author moved another similar article back into article space from draft space, so AFD seems the necessary course. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Indonesia. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 ASEAN Para Games. It can be re-created if enough information can be found after the games. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 18:12, 31 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!} 23:29, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Bjorn[edit]

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

The one good source here apparently consists of a series of interviews with the subject, which is not reliable or independent. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Entertainment. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 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. (non-admin closure) 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colton Ford[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 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!} 23:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ford was the subject of the documentary film Naked Fame, which was reviewed by the Los Angeles Times and the New York Post (see film's page for reviews). After completing the documentary, The Advocate did a piece on him here. He also starred in the television show The Lair. His song "The Way You Love Me" was reviewed by Billboard here. His album Tug of War was reviewed by Billboard here. Instinct did a profile here. The Albuquerque Journal covered him performing here. His song "Stay" was reviewed by Instinct here, and the Gay Entertainment Directory here. His song "Unity" was covered by OutClique here. SFGN did a profile on him here. Metro Weekly covered him here. The list continues, but you get the idea. --Kbabej (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the coverage identified above that shows significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Billboard, Albuquerque Journal, Metro Weekly, The Advocate and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:33, 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 merge to The Order of the Stick. I see a consensus that this article should not be left as is. In terms of the outcome, merges have both a numerical and a policy-based advantage. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Order of the Stick characters[edit]

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

It does not appear that there is enough independent coverage of the characters themselves to provide notability for a separate article on the characters. The main article on the comic can provide coverage of the key characters. HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Webcomics, and Internet. HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge to The Order of the Stick. The lead of this article appears to be reasonably well-sourced (although a bit more reliant on primary sources than I'd like). The only secondary source cited in the entire rest of the article is this, which appears to be an unreliable blog. I found some sources providing brief descriptions of the characters, such as this from Screen Rant, but that only provides a level of detail comparable to what's already at The Order of the Stick#Characters, leaving this article as the usual mass of fancruft in need of a prune. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks, as there appears to be a lack of reference support for this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Pretty much all sources are primary, except for a short Comics Alliance citation. I don't think there's really anything to merge here that isn't already in the main article. It even already has an extensive character listing there. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a redirect seems unnecessary, as the only incoming links to this page are from the proposed target, a list of lists, and 8 DAB pages. The main page already contains a list of characters, so the major ones are covered. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also a matter of external links. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there a tool that shows those? Because a google search for the page's url turned up very little non-Wikipedia content. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reasoning as Maplestrip. Hekerui (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to The Order of the Stick per the above per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The_Order_of_the_Stick#Characters. I am mildly surprised this doesn't meet WP:NLIST, IMHO it's a pretty popular webcomic. But as usual, this is WP:FANCRUFT and WP:ALLPLOT, or mostly. Some content can and should be used to enhance the main article. Don't hardelete, WP:SOFTDELETE (since, I stress, fragments of this can be used to enhance the main article). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add "independent coverage of the characters", which is not hard to find. For example this review concentrates on characters Mithoron (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe lesser sources, but Order Of The Stick: Degrees Of Good And Evil analyses characters and this review talks about their versions in The Order of the Stick Adventure Game: The Dungeon of Dorukan Mithoron (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that review concentrates on the characters. It contains a brief list of them in one paragraph, and then another paragraph with one to two sentences of coverage each on the main hero and the main villain. The fist "lesser source" does not appear to be a reliable source, and the second one seems to be little more than a bunch of passing mentions. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at this a day later, I do see what you mean about the review providing significant coverage of the characters. Personally I still feel a merge is warranted unless enough secondary sources can be found to go into more detail than already exists or would belong The Order of the Stick#Characters without relying on primary sources, whereas all that could be sourced from the above review is a sentence analogous to the last paragraph in the lead, and maybe one or two more sentences in the Roy and Xykon sections. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is plenty of independent coverage of the characters on the Web. See discussion of Roy here. https://thecinnamonroll.co/2014/03/20/webcomic-review-the-order-of-the-stick/

Also, I'd be interested to know how much independent coverage of characters in many TV shows.

Consider this article, which has chalked up 102 edits since 2007, and which contains 0 citations: List of Felicity characters RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a persuasive argument at AfD. Feel free to start Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Felicity characters * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources listed in this AfD meeting GNG per my appraisal. A merge isn't going to be a horrible outcome either, but I don't think policy requires it be enforced as an AfD outcome. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mithoron and Jclemens, and per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 07:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(1) You !voted twice (2) WP:ATD is inapplicable here since the discussion is largely between merging, which is already an ATD, and keeping at this point (3) WP:PRESERVE is inapplicable here since merging is one of the list of actions to consider instead of deleting there. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge per Pppery and others. I would expand the paragraphs at the main article on the Order themselves, especially, and add in some of the longer-running or more pivotal supporting characters such as Celia. But I don't believe the near-exhaustive coverage given them here can be justified. —VeryRarelyStable 11:38, 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 merge to The Legend of the Legendary Heroes#Story. It looks like the merger was begun before this official AFD closure but additional work and editor review may still be called for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Legend of the Legendary Heroes characters[edit]

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

Yet another long list of in-universe plotcruft with no real world notability outside of the fandom. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Anime and manga, and Japan. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The_Legend_of_the_Legendary_Heroes#Story, a section that's way too short and can use more content, even if it's plot summary. Sadly, there is no evidence that NLIST or GNG is met for the separate list of characters. Btw, I did enjoy that show. Just saying :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Merge to The_Legend_of_the_Legendary_Heroes#Story per Piotrus. I think there is merit in keeping the list around as a separate page, since there's a lot of characters and listing them all on the main page would be potentially cumbersome, but if not I am not opposed to merging. However, it needs to be greatly condensed and copyedited in either case. Joyce-stick (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about limiting the merge to just the main characters? That's what I did on an AfD for another anime w/ a large cast. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. I'm not familiar with the source, but even just skimming the list there do seem to be a lot of characters who don't play all that big of a role in the narrative, so they seem able to be safely omitted.

In the case that we opt for a merge, however, I'd stress that it may be a decent idea to consider the potential for resurrecting the list in the future if anyone can find sufficient sourcing to better prove notability (it's entirely possible there's non-English sources that have been overlooked). Joyce-stick (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the core characters to The_Legend_of_the_Legendary_Heroes#Story. There is nothing indicating this much depth is necessary for a general encyclopedic overview of the topic, and there are no sources showing independent notability for the grouping as a whole. TTN (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Piotrus. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to The_Legend_of_the_Legendary_Heroes#Story, unlike the other character list AfD's, the depth seems quite reasonable at first glance. If a merger can be done that preserves content for the main & important secondary characters then merge it, otherwise if it makes the main article too long then keep per WP:SIZESPLIT. I don't watch this series so I can't make an determination either way. Jumpytoo Talk 03:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:CONSENSUS. This list does not meet the WP:GNG because it doesn't have WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. But an editor may summarize some of it for the plot section at the main article. Jontesta (talk) 04:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added cut-down versions of the Main Characters to the main article. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you confirm that you edited that down from Special:PermanentLink/1102878752#Main characters? Please do not merge or copy during the AfD per WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion, point 5 (how-to guide, shortcut WP:EDITATAFD). Also, please follow WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution (guideline, shortcut WP:PATT). Flatscan (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make any changes to the article under AfD, but I did copy/paste some of it over to the main article, since the idea of a merge has been brought up. Feel free to revert if that's not within policy. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 06:10, 13 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!} 23:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Hauman[edit]

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

Non-notable reality television contestant. Bgsu98 (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and California. Bgsu98 (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. She is notable at the local level, certainly, but not beyond that. TH1980 (talk) 01:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Oregon and Food and drink. matt91486 (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG (disclaimer: stub creator). She is NOT only known for her television appearance. There is plenty of coverage in reputable sources specifically documenting her career in both California and Oregon. I've expanded the stub with sources confirming multiple roles at various restaurants and receipt of Eater Young Gun 2015 award. Not to mention, she is also a 2-time James Beard Rising Star semi-finalist. The article now has 12 citations and there are others to add. Also, nominator didn't even give an assessment of sourcing... Keep and expand! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: on the basis of improvements and additional citations.--Ipigott (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. We have stories primarily about her (the first eight footnotes in the current version) in news venues ranging over a 1000-mile span from Portland to San Diego and over a time span from 2016 to now. We also have three somewhat-noteworthy accomplishments (the TV series and two awards), beyond merely working at a restaurant. So I think the pass of WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E is now clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to the sources found since nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:00, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Performances and Quality in Services Award[edit]

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

No sources, or claim of notability. This may be a part of a series of articles that are made by socks of an organisation. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Technology_for_peace

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Anastasiou Obermallen (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ROTM business award. Mccapra (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about this award. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no nothing. Delete. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable award lacks sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation and Quality in Services Award[edit]

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

This article doesn't have any decent sources to back it up, and the award isn't notable from the research that I have done. Obermallen (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ROTM business award. Mccapra (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about this award. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:59, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Obermallen (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canan Öztoprak[edit]

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

This article has hardly any sources besides a poorly made website that was archived. Nor could I find anything that would indicate that this person has a solid claim of notability. Obermallen (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Cyprus, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’ve added a number of sources. Mccapra (talk) 06:06, 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. The hesitant argument supporting merger is outweighed by the concerns about original research; however, if someone wishes to work on verifying content and merging it selectively using a userspace copy, I would be willing to provide one. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pueblo Christianity[edit]

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

Created by a recently-blocked WP:SOCK (see here) and fails WP:GNG. Only a creative essay that attempts to invent the concept of "Pueblo Christianity" in violation of WP:OR and WP:NOTESSAY. Any relevant information on this topic can be added to New Mexico, History of New Mexico, or Pueblo. Novemberjazz 19:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and New Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a tough one. It seems to be well-sourced, but I haven't checked each and every source for reliability. They seem to talk about stuff in the article but it's been strung together to draw a conclusion that may or may not be there.Oaktree b (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I commented a while back on the talk page that the article isn't about Pueblo Christianity and doesn't quote Pueblo voices or cite Pueblo sources. Even the author admitted it was more of a general article about New Mexican Christianity — and is really only about Roman Catholicism and not other Christian sects, so a complete misnomer. Yuchitown (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Comment possibly merge very selectively to Puebloans. Jahaza (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps redirect to Puebloans#Feast days? The Puebloans article mentions that Roman Catholicism is widespread among Pueblos. Most of the other material in Pueblo Christianity is simply Spanish-influenced New Mexican culture not distinctly Pueblo. Yuchitown (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Weak delete There is something here insofar as the concept may exist under a different name and similar Christian groupings (eg Saint Thomas Anglicans) achieve notability. However, this article woefully fails to establish this without original research and a cursory search fails to yield anything that could save it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:39, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Pugh[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, sources lack in-depth coverage. Everything is not independent (such as an interview) or just a minor-mention, with the possible exception of "FRINGE 2019", but that is not enough. MB 19:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and England. MB 19:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of countless junk biography articles about random people from an indiscriminate mass-creator, so please keep the deletions coming. — Smuckola (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's still performing, but mentions are only trivial/in passing. No substantial sources found. Comedian of the year might provide reliability, but I couldn't find any sources that mention it. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing notable can be found to warrant an article. The subject won a local stand-up comedian contest and that appears to be it. Nothing substantial. Sorely fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as I can see does not meet notability in terms of work or coverage. Dunarc (talk) 18:49, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Could not find any news coverage. If somebody could evaluate Angolan sources, that would be helpful. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:91D8:B29C:76C9:CBB (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Angola-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. As IP says, there might be sources in Angola - the issues we don't seem to have them. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Margarete (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Angola. Shellwood (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:34, 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.

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lídia[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Angola. Shellwood (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:00, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ladaínha[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Angola. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:00, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indira (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Angola. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - stats stub that fails WP:GNG as well as guidelines mentioned by nom Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upendra Mahato[edit]

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

Being a leader of a non-residential Nepalese organisation abroad don't make him notable for wikipedia as per general notability guidelines. Possible COI. PlayOboe (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nepal. PlayOboe (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - AFD created by WP:SOCK. Definitely, passes WP:GNG as the topic consists of reputable-reliable-secondary sources from Nepal. Listed as shareholders of offshore companies (Panama Papers) is huge in itself. No further explanation is needed I guess. Kind regards, — Tulsi 24x7 03:25, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dorcacia[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Angola. Shellwood (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any relevant coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chiquita (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Angola. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:58, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bia (Angolan footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Angola-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:57, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Costa[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Angola. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail WP:SPORTBASIC as well as BASIC, can't see any alternative to deletion Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alegria (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Angola. Shellwood (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:57, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

María Da Cruz[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT. The sources in google news are trivial listings or brief match recaps. Avilich (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:57, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beep! Beep! Back Up the Truck[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 17:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article created and predominantly edited by BeepVAS with a likely WP:COI. The archived May 2008 interview with the label founder is really just setting out the start-up proposition; searches are not finding evidence that the project attained notability. AllyD (talk) 13:50, 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!} 18:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Cerqueira[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:56, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clàudia Cerdà[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:56, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alba Cayuelas[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:55, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sònia Carrancà[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT. Available sources are databases, brief interviews and trivial mentions. Avilich (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the best that I can find is this basic Q&A but there is no significant analysis of her there Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:30, 13 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!} 18:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Cardoso Osório[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:55, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alba Cañabate[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can find this passing mention in El Periodic but nothing better Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:34, 13 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!} 18:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Borja[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:34, 13 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!} 18:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marta Blasco[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:34, 13 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 Electricity meter#Prepayment meters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prepaid electricity meter[edit]

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

This is already covered quite well at Electricity_meter#Prepayment_meters. This is a WP:CFORK which is not needed. I prodded and the prod was removed without explanation. Bruxton (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Bruxton (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
মোহাম্মদ মারুফ requested me to translate the article from Bengali Wikipedia, so I don't have interest. Mehedi Abedin 16:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added new information and refs here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by মোহাম্মদ মারুফ (talk • contribs) 05:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That information included a how-to guide and unnecessary detail, which should not be added on Wikipedia. See WP:NOTHOWTO. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:91D8:B29C:76C9:CBB (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect already covered quite well at Electricity_meter#Prepayment_meters. Lethweimaster (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Electricity_meter#Prepayment_meters. This section covers the topic better than the current page.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Romance[edit]

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

Unremarkable release which does not satisfy WP:NSONGS or WP:NALBUMS. Only source found is the Metro which is not to be used per WP:METRO >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy WP:NSONGS or WP:NALBUMS.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lil Peep discography#Mixtapes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Peep; Part One[edit]

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

Had a search of sources here and determined no significant coverage beyond its existence which satisfies WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lil Peep discography#Mixtapes as an WP:ATD. This is a plausible search term. ✗plicit 01:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lil Peep discography#Mixtapes. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing beyond the source presented by nom. SBKSPP (talk) 22:46, 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 undeletion of these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addictiv[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a musician and an article about her album, neither of which are properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The BLP asserts that she had singles peak #48 and #59 in the Canadian Hot 100, but (a) those chart positions aren't sourced at all, and even a Billboard search fails to verify them, and (b) they aren't high enough chart positions to confer an "inherent" notability freebie in the absence of any WP:GNG-worthy sourcing. The "Canadian Radio Music Awards", further, are not an award that satisfies NMUSIC's award criterion -- that goes to awards like the Junos or the Polaris that get media coverage, not just every single music award that exists, and even a Juno or Polaris nomination would still require reliable source support.
But the only sourcing here comes entirely from her own public relations -- even the "MuchMusic" footnote is really just her own EPK bio rather than journalistic or documentary content created by a MuchMusic broadcast personality -- and even on a ProQuest search for 14-year-old media coverage that wouldn't google, I just got a few glancing namechecks of her existence and absolutely nothing that would actually help salvage the article.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have more media coverage about her than I've been able to find. Bearcat (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've tried and can find song listings for her, but no chart listings. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Carvalho (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 13 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!} 18:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clemente Domingo Hernández[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:53, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Marcet[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Avilich (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Avilich (talk) 16:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no decent results found in Google searches or ProQuest Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:24, 13 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!} 18:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of Nigeria by time in office[edit]

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

Per the recent outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of presidents of Nigeria by home state this is an unsourced cross-categorisation. The information is already contained in any case at List of heads of state of Nigeria. Does not pass WP:LISTN. Mccapra (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. List of heads of state of Nigeria already exists. De Guerre (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article creator left this note on their talk page: Please delete the article. AbdulOlu (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC) Mccapra (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above from article creator. --Bduke (talk) 10:18, 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. except for Kalash, Ardabil which will be redirected. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ain Ali[edit]

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

These 22 articles were created by Passportguy (talk · contribs) in 2009 based on a single unreliable source, Tageo. These pages were not updated when Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs) mass-created Iranian places based on the 2006 census, or when Saayeeh (talk · contribs) added the site Citypedia.ir to references. Neither of those is RS for the purposed of WP:NGEO, but their omission in a fairly comprehensive schema increases doubt about the existence of these places under the names provided by Passportguy. My motive for bundling these is the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khoda Kandi, which dealt with another article of this type.

22 articles cited only to Tageo
Ain Ali Alvar, Ardabil Aq Masjed, Ardabil Asfaranjan-e Jadid Asiabar, Ardabil Astalikhvar Asyehvaseh Baba Kohneh Babeh Jik Bagh Qareh Basak Machal Boyuk Khanlu Buzdu Bolagh Hafteh Khuni Hajji Bahman Hajj Iman Khan Hajj Nasir Halvadar Hazar Kandi Qeshlaqi Hurand, Ardabil Kalar-e Sofla Kalash, Ardabil

The user also created a large number of Cyprus villages based on Tageo, but those will be handled separately. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia is doing a terrible disservice to the dissemination of knowledge with these geostubs. My heart sinks when I search for sources and see just reams of Wikipedia mirrors. I haven’t found any reliable sources for the ones I checked and I think we should purge as much if this mass-created junk as possible. Mccapra (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Kalash, Ardabil; delete all others. Hurand is a duplicate of Hurand, but it's in East Azerbaijan province, not Ardabil. Kalash is the same as Kalash-e Bozorg, and can be redirected. Kalar-e Sofla is probably combined with Kalar-e Olya to form Kalar, Ardabil. Boyuk Khanlu seems to be a neighbourhood of a city. The others are probably duplicates or not populated places - and the source is not reliable. Peter James (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreliably sourced, no evidence of notability or verifiability. –dlthewave ☎ 03:42, 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banjo (chocolate bar)[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines, was unable to find reliable sources to incorporate aside from a list-style Telegraph article. The Daily Telegraph has an article about "Seven lost British sweets we pray will come back" here, but it doesn't really say much and it doesn't seem like signifigant coverage to me. The majority of results were other 'snacks we wish they'd bring back' lists from various tabloids such as Metro (see WP:METRO) and the Daily Mirror (seen here and here). Waxworker (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Andrevan@ 21:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article can be improved. A google search turns up a considerable number of mentions and images on UK cultural discussion pages, in newspapers, and a change org petition. The Banjo bar was introduced by Mars post WWII but dropped in 1954 (at the end of rationing they choose to concentrate on their other double bar Twix). However, Mars re-introduced Banjo in 1976 with an extensive TV advertising campaign. The bar was the same but that the covering was now chocolate "flavoured". It was also one of the first products with a heat-sealed plastic wrapper.https://www.oldschoolsweets.com/the-beloved-banjo-bar-just-how-well-do-you-remember-it. It proved successful enough to spawn variations but by the late 1980s, changes at Mars saw it dropped. Finally WP:Notability with these things does and always will have an element of subjectivity. Plutonium27 (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Plutonium27: WP:GOOGLEHITS results don't necessarily indicate notability. Anyone can make a Change.org petition, and 'oldschoolsweets.com' doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Can you provide examples of coverage in newspapers? Waxworker (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As requested: https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/whats-on/food-drink-news/15-chocolate-bars-you-can-12720825 ; https://www.walesonline.co.uk/whats-on/food-drink-news/11-childhood-chocolate-bars-you-12001719 ; https://www.southportvisiter.co.uk/whats-on/food-drink-news/14-legendary-chocolate-bars-miss-10253552 ; https://www.cheshire-live.co.uk/whats-on/food-drink-news/cadbury-launches-retro-chocolate-selection-13809415; also: https://www.netmums.com/life/retro-sweets-from-our-childhood. The infuriating jingle with Kid Jensen v/o: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BylXoQYYWMg . Like I said, it's ultimately subjective - I cannot but think that WP:IDONTKNOWIT applies to this nomination. Indeed, everything you mention on your user page is utterly meaningless to me, those articles could be about asteroids, blastoids or haemorrhoids for all I know. Plutonium27 (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources seem usable for expanding the article - they're all just 'snacks we wish they'd bring back' lists that just give a brief description of the bar at most. The description given in Southport Visiter and Coventry Telegraph are verbatim the same. Waxworker (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for "examples of coverage in newspapers" (which I gave), not "sources usable for expanding the article" - which were supplied in my first reply. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:35, 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!} 21:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - coverage of varying significance found at [2] (page 159), [3] (reason brand ultimately failed), [4], [5], [6]. As product was most popular in 1950s and 1980s, would need to search British newspaper archives, which I don't have access to.

Oops, forgot to sign. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: (WP:ATD redirect to List of assets owned by Mars, Incorporated#Discontinued product lines). Comments: There is an unavoidable policy issue as noted by the tag "This article does not cite any sources". While some like to argue that sourcing on an article is not important, sometimes providing some referencing at AFD or the talk page, these are not part of the article page. The policy on verifiability states: In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. That is not currently possible with no sourcing to back up the content. WP:BURDEN states: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. The tag (January 2020) is sufficient notice of challenge and the article is still unsourced. A campaign to "Bring back the Banjo Bar is not real justification for an article and a small section in a book titled Risky strategy on the demise of the candy supports content but does not advance notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another WP:IDONTKNOWIT editor looking to boost their wiki-standing. The List of assets owned by Mars, Incorporated#Discontinued product lines) does not begin to assert any relevant details of the 1970s British firm's exclusive products handled by their then entirely independent corporation, nor of their advertising campaigns. As for the incidental arguments, I'll bet this editor would not like to see some of his own personal enthusiasms undergo like objective scrutiny. Plutonium27 (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources above do show notability. The "20 discontinued chocolate bars we miss"-type articles that Plutonium27 aren't singularly about the article's subject (which isn't required) but for the most part they are all trivial mentions (though this one is borderline on the level of detail that it goes into because there is content able to be gleaned from the description). If we only had those sources I would lean towards delete. However, 78.26's sources (particularly the Risky Strategy book) do go into more detail. I also found this newspaper article from 1978 discussing the launch of the product. The article's notability is determined by the sources that exist, not the sources currently in the article, so the fact that sufficient sources do not exist in the article at this time is not a reason for deletion. The article's subject has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and therefore meets WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of assets owned by Mars, Incorporated § Discontinued product lines. Coverage exists, but upon a source review, overall coverage does not quite meet WP:SIGCOV, in my opinion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources provided above demonstrate notability. Zeddedm (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficient sources have been identified above to demonstrate notability. Of course it would be desirable to get these into the article soon but that isn't the issue. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are good for notability, not terribly much to say about the candy, but it looks good to me. Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though it is defunct chocolate bar but enough notable. BBSTOP (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of assets owned by Mars, Incorporated § Discontinued product lines. This is a product therefore WP:NPRODUCT guidelines apply as well as WP:NCORP. I agree that coverage exists, but every single reference mentioned above can be classified in one of three ways. It is either a brief mention-in-passing or it is inclusion in an insignificant trivial list of "10 chocolate bars they should bring back" (of which there's no shortage of this type of vacuous article) or based entirely and completely on an announcement such as an advertising agency being awarded with the marketing of the topic chocolate bar or an article announcing the termination of its production. Note of these references come close to meeting NCORP's criteria for establishing notability of a product. The only reference that looked good until I tracked it down was "Sweets: A History of Candy" but it is a single sentence mention about is not cutting it commercially and getting withdrawn. I've checked several other books on "History of Candy" and this bar is not mentioned. In fact, this book contains the only mention in any of the ones I checked. Somebody mentioned the "risky strategy" book but somehow fails to see that the paragraph starts with "I was at Mars Confectionery as a management trainee" - so this is not "Independent Content" as the author is affiliated with the topic subject and fails WP:ORGIND. Despite the Keep !votes above, I reiterate that not a single reference mentioned in the article or at AfD meets our criteria for establishing notability. If anyone disagrees, please post a link to a reference you believe meets the criteria below for discussion. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of assets owned by Mars, Incorporated. For the past hour, I have done an extensive search, and it was exhausting. Listicles are not reliable sources. Here's the other things I've found. [7] p.12: "Banjo was another British bar that was fairly popular in the 1980s, but never quite cut it commercially, and was eventually withdrawn...". Passing mention that serves only as a bearing. [8] p.318: "Mars' Banjo artificial chocolate and its low-fat chocolate bar Flyte...failed the taste test." This is from what is like a textbook with "Did You Know" things that read like tertiary sources. [9] (no page numbers): "Other well-loved chocolate of the decade, in no particular order, included.................Banjo bars..................." (there are two things named 'banjo' there). You'd be scraping the barrel to use this. [10] (p.159) is somewhat significant and can give some information in the Mars article. [11] (no page numbers): also something, and it describes the visual elements of the candy bar. The last two are the 'best' there is. In all, the chocolate bar has not been written about nearly enough to establish its notability from reliable sources. What is listed on this page and on the article are far from meeting WP:N of any form. SWinxy (talk) 21:48, 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 FIBA Under-18 Women's Asian Championship. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 FIBA U18 Women's Asian Championship[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Subject fails GNG; the only sources provided are from the league holding the competition. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and India. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:10, 23 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!} 00:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FIBA Under-18 Women's Asian Championship. Alvaldi (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to inform you that this continental tournament is a qualifier for the world championships of this age group by next year. I really don't understand why you keep on reverting my edits or if you are personally attacking me by not a fan of basketball in any sense that I still don't understand.

Kindly reinstate all the edits made for this article as the tournament will start on 5 September, or else I will make an appeal to the higher authorities for ganging up on me. Alexander marshall 07 (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lists of holidays. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor secular observances[edit]

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

Minor secular observance is not a defined concept, and this list has unclear incision criteria (New Year's Eve is minor? Muslim Women's Day and Christmas in July are secular?). Independence Day (Sri Lanka) is minor as is Independence Day (United States) because they are not global, I guess? This seems like a failure of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NLIST, and effectively a list of observances deemed minor by Wikipedia editors. Ugh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Repair - This type of list is useful for navigation and general reference, but it's a good point the scope is a bit unclear. This list is the result of a merge of List of commemorative days, International observance, List of unofficial observances by date, and List of awareness days. I don't think it would be a good idea to split it back up along these lines, because when we were doing that there was too much overlap. Unofficial observances are somewhat inherently international, and commemorative and awareness days can be official and unofficial and overlap in purpose. Possibilities:
- Move to List of observances by day and include all secular and government-recognized holidays. Due to length, split off List of week-long observances, List of year-long observances, and List of decade-long observances. Also due to length, exclude anything under Category:Religious holidays unless it's a government-recognized holiday, but link to that category for completeness. (It replaced List of religious holidays.)
- Keep the current title, and clarify that "major" means government-recognized holidays with time off, which would presumably exclude the Independence Days mentioned. I would consider Christmas in July and Muslim Women's Day secular because they are not holy days in any religion.
- Split lists to mirror subcategories of Category:Observances.
- Realign to follow Lists of holidays. Note that lists also considers certain saint days to have been secularized, for example Valentine's Day and St. Patrick's Day. I could argue either way on that particular question; maybe it's most neutral just to treat them as both.
- Something else I haven't thought of?
-- Beland (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Do you have a preference among those possible alternatives? -- Beland (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beland Given the problems I outlined, my best SOFTDELETE idea would be to redirect this to Lists of holidays. Unless, of course, someone starts fixing this, but IMHO this is next to impossible due to minor secular observance (this term redirects to our list) being a wiki-invention, which means that the list fails NLIST/OR. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it seems feasible to merge this list into Lists of holidays. The result will probably be too long, but if so we can have a discussion about a more logical way to split it up. -- Beland (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than original research into how to split based on concepts, I think a split by alphabet (by letter or letters) is one way to deal with size. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lists of holidays per above discussion. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lists of holidays keeping only those items that have their own articles or a substantial section in another article, not just a passing mention. Of course, if any items are spotted having articles that don't merit them then those can be put up for deletion and, conversely, if any items are spotted without articles that truly merit one then a stub can be created for them. As it stands the article is a cruft magnet. If it really was a necessary article then we would just have to deal with that but I don't see that it is. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:59, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Kenny[edit]

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

None of the refs in the article in-depth independent secondary reliable sources. I cannot find any, either. Since name is fairly common, I also searched for name plus “preservation earth”. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 08:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Environment, and United States of America. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 08:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks sufficient independent, reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG. Also the NYT source looks to be a case of WP:REFBOMB.Chagropango (talk) 09:48, 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 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!} 07:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hyder Nawab[edit]

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

Subject has no notability except for being part of the House of Paigah. Sources used are a website that is dedicated to royals and a random YouTube video. Spodle^Talk 11:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spodle^Talk 11:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). As for the sources, the royal geneaology website doesn't even mention his name. Finding sources is not straightforward because there's several possible stylings of the name (Nawab being a title that's sometimes considered part of a name), but since the article doesn't actually claim that the person is independently notable, it looks like this article goes against WP:NOTGENEALOGY. --bonadea contributions talk 15:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:51, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Upton[edit]

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

Another local radio DJ with no assertion of notability, fails WP:NBIO. Various NPOV violations. Flip Format (talk) 11:29, 6 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) 11:29, 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. Recent additions to the article help address fuzzy deletion rationale. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Morrell[edit]

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

Local radio/TV presenter who has moved around various jobs but is not especially notable in himself. Flip Format (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Television, United Kingdom, and Australia. Flip Format (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: That's not a reason to delete the article. He's been working in national and regional broadcasting for 30 yers and passes any notability issues. Also the article has independent references. Rillington (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. I've added a couple of reliable sources, the page seems sufficiently notable to me to pass GNG. Cabrils (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thank you for those additions. They help to underline that this article passes notability and further removes any concern regarding lack of independent references. Rillington (talk) 12:21, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nawab Sir Faridun-ul-Mulk Bahadur, K.C.I.E.[edit]

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

Moved back and forth between mainspace and draft and both declined and rejected prior to most recent move. Unable to find any further coverage in a 'naive' search and the issues raised by Bonadea do not appear to have been fully addressed. Unable to verfiy statements in the article and improperly sourced. Eagleash (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I draftified it to give the creator a chance to fix the issues, but they ignored that (or didn't understand what was going on). Being related to royalty, or being part of a notable family, does not automatically make someone notable (WP:NOTINHERITED). There are now three sources in the article; one of them is listed as Outline Of A Metaphysics but is actually the directory Hyderabad State List of Leading Officials, Nobles and Personages from 1932 (the misleading title must be due to some database error over at archive.org, it's not the article creator's fault). In any case, it's not clear what that source is supposed to show, and I've not been able to find the person in that list. Then there's 1936 Hyderabad Directory, also added as a ref without any indication of what it shows. There is an entry on page 244 of the Hyderabad Directory, which says "Fareed Nawaz Jung Bahadur Nawab, Begumpet" – that's all. And finally there is a document from the Andhra High Court, about a taxation case involving the person. These sources say nothing more than that he existed, and the Wikipedia article is a list of his family members – WP:NOTGENEALOGY applies. The article has previously included claims about him being Prime Minister and/or President of Hyderabad, but it was never possible to find any sources that supported that, and it looks like the article creator has removed that assertion again.

Variants of his name, according to the article and the titles it has had, include Fareed Uddin Khan, Fareeed Nawaz Jung (Bahadur), and Faridun-ul-Mulk Bahadur. Nawab is a title which appears to be treated as part of a name in some cases, but not all. This makes it harder to find sources, but I have made a good-faith search to try to find if there is any reason to think this is a notable individual – and I haven't succeeded. --bonadea contributions talk 18:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If he definitely existed and definitely held a knighthood then he is clearly notable per WP:ANYBIO #1. But did he exist and did he hold a knighthood? I can't find his knighthood gazetted in the London Gazette, but given the massive variations of spelling used in Indian names that can be a real uphill struggle. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i have found a refrence to nawab Fareed nawaz jung which i have added to the refrence list Wik!geek (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where in that volume does he appear? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 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 Hellblazer characters#Francis William "Chas" Chandler. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chas Chandler (character)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

AfD last year ended in no consensus, and the article hasn't improved since. Last time the keep votes consisted of one editor asserting that "television and movie appearances suggest notability", and another (topic banned since then from participation on deletion discussions) presented two sources, one of which seems to be just a passing mention in a sentence ([12]), the other one is more in-depth but still limited to the plot summary and of dubious reliability (bamsmackpow). (WP:RSN discussion about it did not attract any comments sadly). Sources present in the article don't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV or are outright PRIMARY (comic books themselves). I recommend redirecting this to List of Hellblazer characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Hellblazer characters - The first comment in the previous AfD says, in part, the nominator is abusing Prod/AfD to try to force someone to work on the article. Starting this one with the article hasn't improved since just reinforces that sentiment and comes across rather tone deaf. Pointing out said user is topic banned is needless grave dancing. I'll ping @Etzedek24:, the other user you reference, for you. The closing comment recommends an alternative to deletion, which I agree with, but I can't help but wonder why this wasn't proposed as a merge on the article page instead of being brought to AfD. The proposed target currently contains zero information on the character in other media, so a straight redirect is insufficient. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hellblazer characters#Francis William "Chas" Chandler, the relevant section already has enough description of the character, merging anything else would only add more in-universe information of questionable importance. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- You believe adding any mention of film and TV appearances would be in-universe information of questionable importance? I think it would be the exact opposite. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - What to merge can be decided later on, but this fails to meet GNG in its current form regardless. I don't see any current potential for improvement. TTN (talk) 13:26, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Centre in India[edit]

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

Doubtful notability, spam, no references. Morpho achilles (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, India, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The article has no references and I wasn't able to find sources to cite the content of the article or pass NORG, except one article from 2008 [13]. Spudlace (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thio Shen Yi[edit]

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

~~Lawyer BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the article and its references aren't great in the current state, but the subject does have some notability. We ignore the family connections as no inherited notability there. On his own merit, the subject is a high-profile lawyer in Singapore who has held multiple important posts, though none of which qualify for automatic inclusion along the lines of WP:JUDGE. Appearances in local newspapers and other news sources are numerous; examples include
1) him writing as a contributor, or being quoted as a legal expert in an article about some other subject (irrelevant for notability) N

2) interview of him and his wife, touching on their law firm and business philosophy^[1] Y

3a) him being the lawyer in large, newsworthy cases such as ^[2]^[3]^[4] (not SIGCOV about him, but lends support for his public profile)

3b) named as one of the victims of a nickel trading scam in multiple reports (passing mentions, but again lends support as being "famous enough")

4) speaking in the capacity of LawSoc president (and before that, vice-president) on matters related to the legal profession, e.g.^[5]^[6] (not about him). N

5) for articles specifically about the subject, I found one about him and his plans for LawSoc after he was elected as president,^[7] Y and retrospectives just before he stepped down.^[8]^[9] Y

6) there is coverage related to his call for reform^[10] in the wake of an incident where a minor committed suicide after being taken in for questioning by police. This was covered in news,^[11] Y drew a ministerial response in parliament,^[12] and there was more follow-up coverage in response to that.^[13] This event was also recapped in the retrospectives mentioned earlier.^[9] The overarching topic in all this is the wider controversy from the incident, but Thio's involvement in making a public intervention using his position as LawSoc president received dedicated individual coverage and formed a key part of the broader discussion. Furthermore, this was an issue that he had been advocating even before the incident occurred.^[14] Keeping in mind the state of media censorship in Singapore (see 1, 2) which may bias the tone and volume of coverage in major local outlets as criticism of the government is involved, I'd consider the coverage that we do have to be already remarkable.

7) also in "not covered by major outlets due to political aspects", where we may have to consider accepting some sources that normally might not quite meet WP:RS to compensate (see bottom comments in WP:RSN discussion): we have a smaller "indy" news outlet giving secondary coverage about political commentary and criticism of the ruling party published by Thio.^[15] Y

Overall, I'd classify this as a weak keep under GNG with some help from extenuating factors. If this article didn't exist, I would not have enthusiastically created it. On the other hand, with benefit of local context, this is not the cut and dried delete that it might otherwise appear to be. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/government-economy/tsmp-leverages-high-tech-but-aims-to-be-high-touch
^ https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/real-estate/park-hotel-management-liquidators-sue-director-over-disposal-of-assets
^ https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/consumer/peter-tan-ordered-to-pay-s85m-to-prudential-over-mass-poaching-of-agents
^ https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/today20100723-2.2.11.11
^ https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/today20140510-2.2.11.2
^ https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/big-read-legal-career-loses-its-sheen-law-firms-take-action-0
^ "Plans for Law Society". The Straits Times. 22 November 2014. p. 4.
^ Vijayan, K.C. (5 December 2016). "Law Soc chief happy to pass on baton / Constructive relationship with Government". The Straits Times. p. 6.
^ ^a ^b https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/lawsoc-chief-reflects-tenure-calls-fairer-equilibrium-criminal-justice-system
^ https://v1.lawgazette.com.sg/2016-02/1480.htm
^ https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/less-intimidating-approach-should-have-been-taken-investigation-yishun-teen-law-society
^ https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/shanmugam-slams-inaccurate-statements-on-death-of-teen-benjamin-lim-mha-to-look-into-how
^ https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/no-intention-to-imply-that-benjamin-lims-death-081417103.html
^ https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/Digitised/Article/today20160112-1.2.8.8
^ https://theindependent.sg/netizen-to-pap-the-lky-playbook-is-outdated/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Evaluation of these sources would help this discussion progress.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Agree with the source explanations above, I'd say it passes. They aren't the best ok for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as per source explanation. BBSTOP (talk) 05:29, 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 redirect to Tin Huey. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before Obscurity: The Bushflow Tapes[edit]

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

No clear evidence of notability. Tow (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Tow (talk) 04:33, 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!} 05:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tin Huey as an WP:ATD. This is a plausible search term. ✗plicit 01:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tin Huey. Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE. SBKSPP (talk) 22:46, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marta Grigorieva[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I tagged this for notability two years ago as I couldn’t see three good sources. Sourcing is still poor. I have just added a Ham&High reference but still do not think she passes WP:NARTIST. Tacyarg (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Women. Tacyarg (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NARTIST. The editing history is suspect. Many single topic IP edits. The photo in the article is suspect, with the upload to the Commons as being created by the subject. No release info on that page. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:58, 24 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!} 03:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Painter, while she has lower Notability, Notablity is still there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.212.247 (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the editor of the unsigned !vote understands what "notable" means in this context. The artist is not notable according to Wikipedia standards. Her work isn't in any major collections, nor has she had work exhibited in any major or even minor museums. All the citations are from minor sources. Her book is self-published. The article is promotional in tone. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article on a painter is a promotional effort WP:PROMO. The sheer number of single purpose accounts WP:SPA in article history that have edited the page makes me think it's the work of a PR firm (paid editing?). Aside from that, the artist does not meet notability requirements for WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. The sourcing consists of four interviews (primary sources that don't count towards notability) one of which is with the Rosemont private client and corporate services firm (PR); two don't mention her at all; another has no byline and ends with plug with her contact info (Native advertising) or a press release. Fails WP:BASIC. It probably should be salted. Netherzone (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure whether it's a PR firm or the subject, I tried to engage with 66.135.171.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) without much luck as they didn't seem to be aware of Talk Pages. I think she's possibly borderline, but never found sufficient sourcing. Star Mississippi 19:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I too wondered if it's an autobiography. It's clear from the article history that the subject has edited the article (as Grigorieva89); whether or not they are also the many single purpose accounts (IP and registered SPA accounts), who is to say other than a CU? Either way, it seems that there may be coordinated editing going on, and for a long time – which is why I thought it may be a PR firm effort. But, focusing on content rather than contributors, it's PROMO and the notability is not there. Netherzone (talk) 21:32, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of IPv6 tunnel brokers[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory for services to conduct business with. No context or sourcing to establish why any of the listed examples are notable. Also WP:ELLIST, fails WP:V and WP:N. Many SPAs have contributed spam. I tried for a few minutes, but could not salvageable this as a stand-alone list with better sources and more specific examples. Common selection criteria has not been followed. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:NOTDIR WP:NOTLINKFARM. Just a list of websites. Ajf773 (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know literally nothing about this topic but this is clearly a link farm and not an educational article. Dronebogus (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the reasons discussed above.MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is not only a list of links, but also provides intricate characteristics of each service, such as Locations, Protocols, Features and more -- useful for doing comparison and making a choice. In that regard it reminds more of the lists like List of AMD Ryzen processors, not a business directory. Especially considering most of the listed entries provide the service for free. In fact if the main objection is the "conduct business with" aspect, then perhaps it could be limited in scope to free services only? Thanks RomanRM (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User RomanRM is an undead account that has barely edited before this Dronebogus (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is no less notable than various lists of internet service providers. These services provide access to the modern IPv6 internet when ISPs fail to do so. A DuckDuckGo search for "list of tunnel brokers" results in the only good resource being this page, or pages copied from it. Jpmahowald (talk) 16:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC) — Jpmahowald (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Native IPv6 is becoming far more pervasive, particularly on cellular networks and in the United States, but there is still a need for tunnel brokers worldwide. I propose the article stays. IlliterateSage (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY, "Keep" rationales provide no reason for this article to be kept other than WP:ITSUSEFUL, which is a textbook illegitimate reason for an article to be kept. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a business directory and the article cites almost exclusively primary sources. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to tunnel broker some of the items on the list appeared notable, like Hurricane Electric, some are not. Andrevan@ 02:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC) (clarify that it should be deletemerged Andre🚐 18:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Per nom. and per WP:NOTDIR. NMasiha (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one has a link to a Wikipedia article, the rest are just linking to external sites. Category:IPv6 shows there is an article for tunnel brokers. If anything in the article is worth keeping, perhaps it could be merged over there. Dream Focus 12:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - List needs work and more than the few minutes the nom put in but it does pass WP:LISTN with RFC 3053 itself being a strong reference demonstrating this is a notable collection. ~Kvng (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seriously. WP:NOTDIR, WP:LINKFARM, WP:NOTDATABASE and so on. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with every rationale above. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tunnel broker: WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. Only the notable ones should be included in the target article. ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't stuff salvageable, but rather a list of external links. It reads like an advertisement... SWinxy (talk) 05:13, 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 by an admin. Obvious advertising and promotion. (non-admin closure) Thingofme (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intellecap[edit]

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

Intellecap

Stub article about company that does not satisfy corporate notability. One copy of this article was already created, and moved into draft space as not ready for article space. This copy is the same, and is not ready for article space. It does not mention significant coverage by independent sources. Neither of the references is independent.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	aavishkaargroup.com	Web site of parent company	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	forbesindia.com	Interview with CEO	No	Yes	Yes	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Africa, and Odisha. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons nominated. I see someone has CSD'ed too so it may go sooner rather than later. Not seeing any potential in it being worth draftifying. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've speedily deleted. Can't understand how it survived so long. Deb (talk) 08:35, 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!} 05:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Charles High School, Bangalore[edit]

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

fails WP:NSCHOOL -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Karnataka. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and an unsourced article fails WP:NSCHOOL. I can better understand the school guidelines after deleting my own created school article. BBSTOP (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find any coverage, and the one source that isn't sourced to the school isn't significant. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 14:21, 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 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!} 05:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jairo Morris[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:29, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Errol Wellington[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:29, 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 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!} 05:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Wilson (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:29, 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 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!} 05:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allon Williams[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:29, 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 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!} 05:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dowlyn Daly[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:28, 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. Meets WP:ACADEMIC as Vice Chancellor is the highest administrative position in most universities while the position of Chancellor is just ceremonial. It might not be so in some universities, but for this discussion and for the university in question, the Vice Chancellor is indeed the highest administrative officer. (non-admin closure) Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buta Singh Sidhu[edit]

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

No indication of notability. The references are either primary or just simple routine coverage like academic announcements. KSAWikipedian (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. KSAWikipedian (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete University administrator, does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, does not qualify per any SSG, lack of published reliable INDEPENDENT sourcing on the subject. A loose necktie (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since he is Vice chancelor, the top academic position at a univeristy, he would meet one of the academic notability guidelines, but only if Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Technical University is the level of university that confers such notability on its academic heads. I am not familiar enough with that university to say if it is, and I actually have doubts we have figured out exactly which universities are notable enough to confer such notability on their heads.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the mean time, what we DO have is WP:GNG, which is our go-to guideline when we do not have an SSG in any particular area, and which all of our articles are supposed to be meeting anyway. The contents of WP:ACADEMIC offer a thumbnail presumption of notability, not actual evidence of it, and if we look and we don't find evidence of notability, even for a subject that seems to meet an SSG, then the presumption is that the subject is not notable and therefore does not warrant an article, yes? A loose necktie (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm going to relist this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Academic with a decent citation rate 1 2 as well as most senior academic (as Vice-Chancellor). Mccapra (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a good academic life and a vice chancellor of an university, passes WP:GNG. BBSTOP (talk) 05:34, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Moss (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I attempted a search of his name in several British Virgin Islands newspapers, and found nothing. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:07, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Davis (British Virgin Islands footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played in a Tier 1 International FIFA match. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFOOTBALL is a deprecated criteria and does not exist anymore. Your voting reason is therefore invalid. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:GNG. I had a look for sources but have been unable to find any that are reliable. However, if someone finds something, then feel free to share. Fats40boy11 (talk) 09:47, 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 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!} 05:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Henroy Mitchell[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:28, 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 redirect to List of Nepal ODI cricketers. This discussion has established quite clearly that of the sources found thus far, only one secondary source is both reliable and substantive. My reading of NSPORTS and NCRIC is that for a player, even an international player, of a non-test-playing nation, a single source is not sufficient for notability, and so the argument to keep isn't supported by the provided evidence. I do not see an argument supporting outright deletion, and so salting is moot; however, we could consider fully protecting the redirect if it becomes necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kishore Mahato[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NSPORT/GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 15:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Nepal. –dlthewave ☎ 15:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are some mentions, but I'm not sure they really combine to provide a more in-depth detailing of the subject. Getting there, but I'm not sure they're there yet. In which case we'd be better off reinstating the redirect for now and seeing what else can be found - the basis for a better article is here and it would be annoying at best to have to do the work again when it's already been done. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, actually WP:GNG requires "multiple" sigcov, so at least two, and GNG trumps everything. This is the 3rd time it's been put into main space, we are on the verge of needing it WP:SALTed. The last AFD made it pretty clear it should have gone to review before recreating, then draftifying, then pushing back into mainspace. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown:, this is one of several articles that were created as a redirect by one editor and expanded to a stub shortly thereafter. I wonder if this has the effect (intentional or not) of skirting our review processes, since a redirect would receive less scrutiny than a stub. –dlthewave ☎ 19:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, it's hard to always know what someone's motivations are. Salting would make it moot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to List of Nepal ODI cricketers or weak keep~~ Keep. There seems to be a contradiction between WP:CRIN and WP:NCRIC, with the former saying something and the later summarising something different. Then the added WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG makes it complicated. Completely deleting this doesn't right. Human (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRIN is an essay, which doesn't mean it has no value, it's just not vetted as rigorous as policy and can't be used as a policy based rationale. WP:GNG is the authority for all other sub policy/essay/etc, ie: "multiple reliable sources with significant coverage". That said, I don't have an issue with a delete and redirect, but I would definitely want it full protected (salted) if it went that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note-- The user above is the person who copy pasted this in the first place. This circumvented the AfC process Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: The user above? Does me and DIVINE look like the same person? I removed the redirect and filled the article using my own words. This has nothing to do with any copy paste from the draft you mentioned below. Human (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are common sources which can be easily found on google, hence you've not copied or pasted anything here. DIVINE (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete. This is a copy-paste from Draft:Kishore Mahato. It had been created and then moved to draft space originally as not ready for main space.Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comparing the draft and article at the time of its creation by Simplehuman, I don't think this one is a copy-paste job. –dlthewave ☎ 18:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~That is not a copy paste from a draft, as I raised that question on the User:Primefac talk page before and he has already clarified it. DIVINE (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~+What Dennis Brown has said. much better reasoning than I can express. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

struck per Blue square thing and others-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nepal ODI cricketers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nepal ODI cricketers There's not enough here for a GNG pass, but there is a clear redirect per WP:ATD. Probably should have been BOLDy redirected in the first place, but there does seem to be a bit of confusion. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect. He has taken a five wicket haul, which I would imagine in cricket mad Nepal received widespread coverage. With regard to NCRIC, it should be all ODI cricketers are notable given it is a very exclusive level of the sport – considering only 28 teams out of the 106 members of the ICC have ever played at that level. It is the highest international level of the game and considerably above 'international' matches with List A status, or 'international' one-day matches with no status. StickyWicket (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP. He is a national cricket player of Nepal and have already represented a number of matches in international arena. There are plenty of local sources available. I have added few. Please check. The confusing content of the article has also been reworded. I suggest a person competent in cricket vocabulary do a through copy edit. There is no need to keep it in Draft either. It is suitable to be published. Best!nirmal (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had already added the notable reliable sources before too, as they only regard English sources as WP: RS, and should try to translate Nepalese sources too. Kishore is notable enough to be here being a national ODI and T20 Player. DIVINE (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
References do not have to be in English WP:GNG "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." But they do need to "Significant coverage" not minor mentions. Jeepday (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. User:Nirmaljoshi has added sources to the article. St Anselm (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable National cricket player and support Nirmal's comment above. DIVINE (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the notability appears to be there, being an international competitor. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nepal ODI cricketers. Only one of the sources (online khabar) rises to the level of significant coverage (more content could be added from this) but the rest are just passing mentions in primary sources (match reports, squad announcements, etc.) and the usual database. This is not enough to demonstrate notability per GNG or BASIC. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that several new sources were added to the article on 31 July 2022‎ (UTC).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY sources added by Nirmaljoshi. BBSTOP (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom): I considered changing to Keep after others mentioned the additional sources which were added, but only one of them actually contributes to significant coverage; the rest are stats tables, match reports and the like. Please let me know if I'm mistaken in this assessment:

[14] - Good in-depth bio

[15] - Stats table

[16] - Match report, brief mention

[17] - Stats table

[18] - Team lineup announcement, name appears once in a list

[19] - Stats table

[20] - Team lineup announcement, brief mention

[21] - Team lineup announcement, name appears once in a list

[22] - Team lineup announcement, name appears once in a list. –dlthewave ☎ 05:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why one in-depth biography plus at least one other mention isn't enough to keep the article? Especially given that this biography contributes to broadening the scope of Wikipedia to include more diverse articles? If the assessment is that the first source is an in-depth bio then I would certainly support keeping rather than redirecting. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary coverage (which includes match reports, team announcements, etc.) and wide ranging databases do not contribute to establishing notability. One of the reasons we usually require multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage is to comply with V and NPOV. In general, BLPs should not be based on a single source. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the criteria for inclusion (WP:GNG) requires multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. The most minimalistic view of that policy is two reliable articles of significant coverage, which this fails. Passing mentions don't count towards meeting notability requirements, although they can be used to source some facts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the maximalist view. The minimalist view is that for certain sportspeople one source with significant coverage in the article + routine, statistical coverage can be a proxy for GNG. St Anselm (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPORTCRIT #5 only makes sense if one such source in the article is sometimes sufficient. St Anselm (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPORTCRIT was amended in this regard largely to ~~prevent~~ discourage creation of low quality stubs purely by means of scraping a database (see WP:NSPORTS2022, proposal 5; diff of change); it is in no way a bypass of GNG/BASIC and the requirement for multiple sources with significant coverage. The idea of one source with significant coverage being sufficient only has consensus for sources that are of such high quality and depth that it is utterly inconceivable that no other significant coverage exists; that is plainly not the case here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even reading what you are linking? The very first line of SPORTCRIT says A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published[3] non-trivial[4] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[5] and independent of the subject. First, they are presumed, it isn't automatic just likely IF, and only IF they have been the subject of significant coverage by multiple publishers, ie: non-trivial secondary sources. In short, what GNG says, and what this fails to pass. Multiple, independent, sigcov, RS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read that. And I don't think WP:NSPORT is consistent. Or even why it even exists, if it just falls back to GNG. So we just have to make the best sense of it we can. St Anselm (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They all get their authority from GNG. Many of the sub-criteria are essays, or projects, some are policy, but at the end of the day "2+ independent RS w/sigcov" is the gold standard. that is what I meant by minimalist. GNG says "multiple", and 2 is the smallest number that qualifies as "multiple". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is either a keep, based on a decent source and a bunch of passing references coming pretty darned close to BASIC levels of coverage, or it's a redirect to List of Nepal ODI cricketers with a note added to his entry. From the POV of dealing with systematic bias there's some merit in being slightly more generous on the keep side here: chances are that more source exist in Nepal and that given his age, more are likely to be written. I'd be happy enough to keep on the basis that that's likely, but I've no doubt that that will enrage other people so would have no problem with a redirect. What this is not under any circumstances is a delete - there is a long standing consensus that cricket articles such as this are redirected to a suitable list. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the team for another ODI and T20I. Anyone here are feel free to add this reliable sources [23][24] & Nepalese cricket team in Kenya in 2022. DIVINE (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of squad/team announcements and match reports. Such sources are primary, almost always not significant coverage and do not contribute to demonstrating notability. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but without WP:CRYSTALBALLING I think we can presume that the coverage will only grow as he plays more matches. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shariz Ahmad for a similarly new player. I actually created the article on Pat Cummins while he still technically failed the notability guidelines. Not saying Mahato will become a Test cricket captain, but we are allowed to be sensible about this. St Anselm (talk) 21:02, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dipak Kumar Sharma[edit]

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

Minor politician. Hasn't won an assembly election. fails WP:NPOL -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Bihar. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant contribution, no context, losing an election is not a notable thing. QueerEcofeminist🌈 15:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom this person fails WP:NPOL. BBSTOP (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:16, 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 merge to 2022 Asia Rugby Championship. ✗plicit 03:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Asia Rugby Championship division tournaments[edit]

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

Subject fails GNG; beyond dis-allowed Facebook cites, many of the sources provided are from the league holding the competition. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: ~~Rugby league~~ and Asia. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2022 Asia Rugby Championship Parent article isn't particularly long here, and a merge of some of the details and sourcing to the parent article in my opinion would be better than deletion as these matches did occur. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, I want to explain the citation of Facebook posts. The official governing body of this competition, Asia Rugby, does not always write a news article including enough detail to be cited. I could not find a better source for the competition from the official governing body. Of course, I know very well that Wikipedia needs a secondary source, but adding an original source would not be harmful. Regpath (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, I don't think this article should be deleted. Though there are not many citations of secondary sources in this article's current status, there are plenty much news articles mentioning the competition. I will add them. Regpath (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article and 2022 Asia Rugby Championship are not very long, so merging that may be a nice alternative. But the articles for these competitions have existed as separate articles from the 2008 edition. If we merge these two articles, then it is not consistent and may confuse readers. Regpath (talk) 09:51, 24 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!} 00:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is just a results listing. LibStar (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Asia Rugby Championship. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:58, 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.

Luis Vidal (footballer)[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) starship .paint (exalt) 03:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC, could not find any significant coverage.~~ starship .paint (exalt) 03:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Struck, coverage produced. starship .paint (exalt) 03:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Chile. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. There will be offline sources, but lack of them is a problem. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: see below? starship .paint (exalt) 14:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - great research below, enough for me to change my mind. Giant Snowman 17:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm inclined to think Vidal may be notable enough for inclusion. There are some photos and minor comments about him in 1941 magazine Estadio [25] (these photos are in the public domain and may be used to illustrate the biography). He apparently was called "Zorro Vidal" (p. 130) Another player, Carlos Vidal, was also called the Zorro Vidal, but the latter was retired when the nickname was used to refer to Luis. Estadio magazine, the main sports magazine in Chile back in the day, dedicated a three page report to Vidal in 1947. available here Vidal played at Universidad Católica and was also the team manager in the 1960s. [26] --Bedivere (talk) 03:15, 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 no consensus. The discussion suggests that there are hints of notability here and there, but no clear-cut evidence has been found; conversely, while the nominator's argument is strong, it has not received explicit additional support. I would recommend finding editors who are able to evaluate any sources in Hebrew, and bringing the article back to AfD if they do not prove substantive. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Shatal[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:COMPOSER, GNG, and ANYBIO. The citations are either catalogs including her work or mere mentions that she was a composer. (Google doesn't give me the best preview of the printed books, so I could be mistaken.) Per WP:BKTS her correspondence being archived doesn't make her notable; not even the correspondence is notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Israel, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m puzzled by the suggestion that this article be deleted. When music is published, musicians want information about the composer to inform their performance and include in concert program notes. In addition, Paul Ben-Haim is a well-know composer and any correspondence with him, particularly if archived in the National Library of Israel, is of interest. You may want to actually read the printed books for more information.

T. E. Meeks (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@T. E. Meeks: could you provide WP:RS WP:SIGCOV sources? I could not find any. Fair disclosure: I did know Ms. Shatal. gidonb (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take the citations to a public or college library. Some of them (JSTOR, EBSCO, etc) are behind paywalls but the library should have subscriptions that the public can access. The best hardcopy reference is the Cohen, a standard reference work which is available in most music libraries. T. E. Meeks (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can read JSTOR with my Wikipedia subscription. Only one article mentions her. As not in a book. It did not state that she was important, just the fact that she was missing as part of the reviewer's thought process on two composers who would not collaborate with a book reviewed. Lets concentrate on this Cohen reference. Do you have access to it? How many words/sentences are there about Miriam Shatal? gidonb (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

T. E. Meeks, a lot of the information that you dug up from internet sources is wrong. For example, she did not die in 1983 (also the national library claims this) and probably lived until the ripe age of 102 or 103. If I can make a really wild guess, she had sent some files to the national library of Israel in 1983, some archivist gathered that she must have died (which is a common point in time to receive a personal archive) and wrote 1983, when she was very much alive, as her year of death, and others copied this. gidonb (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I made some slight improvements to the article. CT55555 (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, CT55555! Same here. Already more than slight. gidonb (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I succeeded at reading the book review in Fontes Artis Musicae of Alice Tischler's Israeli composer book through my Wikipedia subscription. Miriam Shatal is listed in the review as one of many composers not in a book so not helpful at all. gidonb (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the quote in Fontes Artis Musicae DOES establish Shatal’s importance: “In all, sixty-three composers are considered, though she mentions that two other unidentified composers declined inclusion. It would have been interesting to know which two declined, for a few missing names do present themselves: Emanuel Amiran-Pougatchov, Max Brod, Mary Evan-or, Miriam Shatal, and Michael Taube, to name a few.” T. E. Meeks (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what word or short phrase that refers to Shatal says she is important??? Having looked for sources, I agree with the nominator that Shatal fails WP:COMPOSER. I am open to the option that the totality of her activities in the visual arts, music, and community service pulls her over the line -- the prize she won is some indication in that direction -- but I would need to see clear proof for WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, as we do not work by WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST! gidonb (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has been expanded with biographical information added since the time of its nomination. Does this affect anyone's opinion on whether or not it should be kept or let go?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I hate to relist this discussion a third time but I don't see much commentary after improvements have been made to the article. Has this influenced anyone's opinion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked for Dutch sources on "Jannie Pinkhof" or "Jannie Spangenthal", and found very little: she appears in a family photo https://www.joodsmonument.nl/nl/page/181268/marianne-jeannette-pinkhof-oppenheim and there is an announcement of her engagement to Spangenthal (note the different spelling without the h), in the Algemeen Handelsblad of February 2, 1925. There is a brief mention of her as "Jannie Spangenthal, biologist and musicologist." in Lewin, Lisette (2013-02-28). Vorig jaar in Jeruzalem: israel en de Palestinapioniers (in Dutch). Singel Uitgeverijen. ISBN 978-90-388-9706-6.. Vexations (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't read Hebrew but there seem to be lots of relevant items in the National Library of Israel such as this. Seems to me it would be a mistake to delete the article before additional research is conducted.--Ipigott (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Nobody has actually cast a vote yet after all these weeks, and I don't know if this one helps too much. Per the plea in the last re-listing, I think the presence of biographical information makes a difference because Ms. Shatal does have some reliable notice as a composer. That should be enough for a basic stub article. As others have noted, a search for the Hebrew version of her name (מרים שתל ) leads to many results but I do not read that language. If anyone with the proper skills wants to volunteer, more useful info may be available in those sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside... if nobody else votes and if the ultimate decision is "weak keep" or "no consensus", we can ask for assistance from Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel, Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music, etc. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 03:21, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this can be closed as keep. When no one casts a !vote based in policy, and the nomination is based in policy, the nominator has it. gidonb (talk) 12:31, 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. ✗plicit 01:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Kostrzhevskiy[edit]

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

Violation of BLP. No significant coverage. DavidEfraim (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ukraine. DavidEfraim (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like he copied and pasted his CV here; I find no sources, but they are likely in Ukrainian so I can't read them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep, cleanup. MPs are presumed notable. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this CV. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional thoughts regarding that notability issue: If he has been a member of parliament and if a reliable source confirms that (although I can find no such source), this would be notable. However, that is not sufficient justification for the existence of the article. It also needs "enough valid content to fill an article about a person." Once we remove the list of material that appears to have been taken straight from his CV without external sources, there's nothing left. Delete this. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 00:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but stubify. I’ve added a source showing that he was a member of the Rada. Only the lede should be kept though. The rest is just cv fodder and should all go. Mccapra (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The refs added by Mccapra do show notability per WP:GNG and he also meets WP:NPOL. The original state of the article was atrocious, but deletion is not an alternative to cleanup. Even in the current state, however, that "Achievements" section needs to go. - Aoidh (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NPOL. A thorough cleanup would be helpful though. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets the appropriate notability guideline (WP:NPOL). Deletion is not cleanup —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person Meets WP:NPOL. BBSTOP (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He may not be notable now, but he was, so still is now as per WP:NTEMP. Also found this mention of his Green party affiliation.Chagropango (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NPOL as confirmed in reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:34, 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.

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The FredCast[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Sports, Cycling, Internet, and Utah. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:50, 15 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!} 23:22, 22 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!} 23:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not coverage to prove notability. The podcast finished in 2015, so it's highly unlikely this will change. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Having previously been kept at AfD, this article is ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with above, no sources found and unlikely to find others. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 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. ✗plicit 01:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of low-cost airlines[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NLIST, "low cost" is not objective inclusion criteria. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Lists. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Low-cost carriers and subcategories therein. Note that at WP:NOTLIST it states (underline emphasis mine):

“

Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed.

”

Also, list articles full of functional blue-links that meet WP:NOTDUP and are provided for navigational purposes per WP:LISTPURP typically do not need to meet WP:NLIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Shows every sign of notability. + no real reason for its nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyJew (talk • contribs) 04:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list article links to Low-cost carrier showing this is a real thing, and there is a category for this also. So it is a valid navigational list article. Dream Focus 13:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per others and what the hell? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inclusion criteria is subjective. What constitutes "low cost", "budget", "no-frills", etc. has no clear boundary. While the general phenomenon may warrant coverage in an article (which is fine, an exact boundary isn't necessary for that), a list delineating low-cost from non-low-cost doesn't. Moreover, the appeals to NOTDUP are insufficient because this isn't a WP:DEFINING characteristic -- the existence of the category itself is probably inappropriate. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changed based on Jumpytoo's logical argument~~Delete~~ Grey-area definition, Wikipedia has no place for determining the status of various airlines. For example, many airlines compete with Ryanair in Europe (e.g. Aer Lingus) and may sometimes, in their financial reports, claim to be moving to a "budget" model but don't appear in this WP:OR list. How does an airline qualify for inclusion in the list? Self-identify? For example, why does the list of airlines in this article for USA differ from the table/list at 4.1 included in the book "Low Cost Carriers in the USA and Canada" (which you'd imagine is a key source)? Is there another source with a different list? No. The answer is WP:OR and for that reason, this article should be deleted. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic meets NLIST per HighKings source and that ICAO maintains a list of low cost carriers. I disagree with the IP's argument that WP:DEFINING does not apply, because sources frequently when namedropping budget airlines will describe it as a "low cost" or "budget" airline, two random examples: ([27] [28]) I also disagree with HighKing's argument because there are objective inclusion criteria, either use the ICAO list and/or when reliable sources describe the airline as a low cost carrier. For his example specifically, every airline that is still active are in both lists, the differences are always either because the airline folded after the book was released or the airline was founded after the source was published. Jumpytoo Talk 03:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given that there is significant coverage of low-cost carriers as a group, this passes WP:NLIST. On top of that, the ICAO list presented by Jumpytoo indicates that this is a term that is used even within regulation, so it makes it possible for us to use selection criteria that are resistant to WP:OR. As such, I see no reason to delete the article (or do anything but keep), though the content may need some improvement. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:35, 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 00:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bonkuy[edit]

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

The word bonkuy (Persian: بانک) means bank in Farsi, so it is highly likely that these Carlossuarez46-created geostubs are actually banks and not villages. The dab page itself is also entirely WP:PTM, suggesting that Carlos was also very loppy in creating the Iran placename dabs.

All "Bonkuy" place names
Bonkuy-e Amiri Bankuy-e Ashayir Dahaneh Qalehha Bankuy-e Ashayir Kol Chah Bonkuy-e Ashayir Miraki Bonkuy-e Ashayir Shaban Kareh Bonkuy-e Bagdali Bonkuy-e Chahar Boneh Cheh ~~Bonkuy-e Dangzalu~~ Already at PROD Bonkuy-e Gholam Hoseynlu Bonkuy-e Hasanlu Bonkuy-e Hemmatlu Bonkuy-e Heydari Bonkuy-e Heydarlu Bonkuy-e Jafari Bonkuy-e Kazemi Bonkuy-e Khalili Bonkuy-e Mokhtari Bonkuy-e Nosrati Bonkuy-e Qarbani Bonkuy-e Rahimi Bonkuy-e Rajabi Bonkuy-e Sadeqi Bonkuy-e Shobani Bonkuy-e Sohrab Khanlu Bonkuy-e Soleymani

All "Bonkuy" place names

Bonkuy-e Amiri
Bankuy-e Ashayir Dahaneh Qalehha
Bankuy-e Ashayir Kol Chah
Bonkuy-e Ashayir Miraki
Bonkuy-e Ashayir Shaban Kareh
Bonkuy-e Bagdali
Bonkuy-e Chahar Boneh Cheh
~~Bonkuy-e Dangzalu~~ Already at PROD
Bonkuy-e Gholam Hoseynlu
Bonkuy-e Hasanlu
Bonkuy-e Hemmatlu
Bonkuy-e Heydari
Bonkuy-e Heydarlu
Bonkuy-e Jafari
Bonkuy-e Kazemi
Bonkuy-e Khalili
Bonkuy-e Mokhtari
Bonkuy-e Nosrati
Bonkuy-e Qarbani
Bonkuy-e Rahimi
Bonkuy-e Rajabi
Bonkuy-e Sadeqi
Bonkuy-e Shobani
Bonkuy-e Sohrab Khanlu
Bonkuy-e Soleymani

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Geography, Disambiguations, and Iran. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 00:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also discovered the article Binak, whose full name Bīnak Kūh-e Bānk is probably of a bank as well. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have also PRODded the aforementioned article and Beynak-e Olya. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all spurious creations by this editor. Mccapra (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all, I guess it's not just the wells, then. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Big waste of community time. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LaundryPizza03, بانک bānk means 'bank', but in these titles the term is a different one: بنكوي bonkūy. What does that mean? Uanfala (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: Ask a Persian speaker, not me. Google Translate and a few foreign-language queries seems to suggest banks. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we could do with input from a Persian speaker. But until then, I can't find anything reliable that connects the term of the dab page with banks. Banku means 'cotton seed' according to this dictionary [29] (I don't know if this is the same as bonku, and there's no separate entry there for the form with the suffix -y, which I imagine could likely be an izafat marker). Uanfala (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is Sheffield a field, Bakewell a well, and Clydebank a bank? Also bank in the nomination links to a type of business usually found in urban areas, whereas these are in rural districts, at the locations of villages or hamlets for which no other name is known. https://www.isna.ir/news/1400102316925/%D8%A7%D8%AA%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9%84-%DB%B1%DB%B5%DB%B5%DB%B0-%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B1-%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C-%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B3-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%B4%D8%A8%DA%A9%D9%87-%D9%85%D9%84%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D8%B7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA mentions Bonkuy-e Sadeqi (and Bonkuy-e Sheybani, which is probably the same as Mazraeh-ye Baqr Sheybani, an article deleted because it was assumed to be a farm). Peter James (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a single reliable source that describes any one of these "villages" in depth, I will happily rescind my delete vote. Thanks —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree here. Even if an Iranian news story mentions one of these places in passing, this is still a long, long way from showing the WP:GEOLAND#1 or WP:GNG pass needed to keep the article. Let's remember that WP:GEOLAND#1 requires evidence of legal recognition, which a simple mention in a news story can never confer. FOARP (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also a similar mention of Bonkuy-e Jafari at https://www.irna.ir/news/84316786/%D8%B2%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%AE%D8%AA-%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%B4%D8%A8%DA%A9%D9%87-%D9%85%D9%84%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D8%B7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%DB%B2%DB%B3-%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%B3-%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%B9%D9%87-%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%AA. Peter James (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another passing mention. Not evidence of legal recognition. Both Jafari and Shebani are apparently names so it makes perfect sense that a bank and a farm would have names like that. Particularly saying that this abadi is within Khorama city also casts doubt on it being an actual village. FOARP (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's in a rural district, not a city. And they are mentioned in a list of villages. Peter James (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Khorama definitely is a city - look at it on the map. The term used is abadi, so not necessarily rural villages. And again, where is the notability pass under any of our guidelines? FOARP (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source says Khorama (or Kherameh), but from the context (and the articles about the places) it's clear that the county is intended, not the city. Peter James (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to say, again based on machine translation, "Khorameh city", so again, it is not clear why you are saying that it can only be talking about the county. FOARP (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - In reality, the reason why people are grouping these failing articles by name is that at least where the name appears to indicate that the place is something other than a village, then the keep !votes of people who think that any village of any kind should be kept, regardless of how bad the sourcing is, can be avoided. The truth is that even for places that appear to be villages in Iran, we just don't have reliable sourcing in our articles showing this because all of them were created based on the Iranian census which does not distinguish between "real" villages and places that are just banks, wells, pumps, etc. In this case there is a good reason based simply on the names to believe that these are not villages, still less WP:GEOLAND#1 passing villages since there is no evidence of legal recognition, still less any place that would ever be notable enough for a WP:GNG-passing article. Reviewing the articles I did not see any that had any location data that would enable people to better identify what they are even talking about. We can argue what exactly names like "بنكوي عشايردهنه قلعه ها" actually mean, but the only source I have to hand is Google translate which tells me it's talking about a bank, and Google Translate is at least a better source than Carlossuarez46 who apparently did not speak Persian - until a Farsi speaker says otherwise I am OK to assume these are banks. FOARP (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I input بنكوي عشايردهنه into Google Translate, what I get is "Bankoi of the Dahneh nomads". بنكوي on its own is translated as "banking", but that appears to be instance of liberal autocorrection (hints: click on the translation: you see a list of Farsi words translated back, but none of them are the same as the one you've input; also, no other dictionary seems to have this word). Also, if all of these places are really banks, then why does the census record hundreds of families living in each? It should be obvious by now that this nomination rests on a simple misinterpretation of a placename element. Uanfala (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uanfala From experience with Chinese (which I do at least read/write to a reasonable though far from native degree of fluency from living in CN and TW) Google Translate doesn’t list all the possible translations for a word that it has in its system. But even if this is an incorrect translation, this clearly isn’t a WP:Geoland#1 pass since there is no evidence of legal recognition (abadis are statistical units of the census, not communities as such) and with that everything falls.

As for why the Iranian census records a population for it, do we really have to repeat for the millionth time that what that means is that the people were recorded as living near a reference point, and not necessarily in it? Sorry if I sound frustrated here but this has been litigated again and again at AFD and I thought perhaps you might have seen one of the many other AFDs and other discussions on this topic. This is the reason why there are so many pumps, wells, bridges, farms, shops, factories etc etc etc listed as abadi. This is why it is very possible that there is no village at this location with this name - either it may be part of a larger community (eg a neighbourhood), or it may be an aggregate of more than one community, or it may be a disparate collection of unrelated houses, or it may be a single village having a different name. Without anything to actually substantiate that there is a legally-recognised community with these names then the whole lot simply falls. FOARP (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in this discussion to suggest that these abadis are of the same type as the ones that got deleted previously. If anyone has looked for sources and found none, then that would be an argument for deletion. However, that's not what's happening here. The only deletion rationale so far appears to be the observation that the names of these places have a component that Google autocorrects to the word for bank, and that's not a valid rationale. Uanfala (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once it became demonstrated that there is no difference between reference-point abadis and other abadis in the census, the WP:Burden shifted to people who wanted to keep these articles to demonstrate that they should be kept. I’ve spot-checked a few of these and found nothing. Finding a bare mention in a news story is not sufficient to meet WP:Geoland#1 either. FOARP (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a proposal for the deletion of all abadi articles, that would be worth discussion. But this here is not it. This is an attempt to delete four dozen articles about apparent rural settlements on the surreal misunderstanding that they're somehow articles related to banks. Uanfala (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uanfala Honestly I think that we’ll get to the deletion of all of Carlossuarez46’s Abadi articles that haven’t been improved by anyone else eventually. This is because even deleting them in blocks of dozens like this takes way too much community time. We’ll also get on to Mr Blofeld’s mass-created “village” stuff based on GEOnet Names Server that hasn’t been improved by anyone else as well.

For the time being, though, and until it is clear that the community is going to accept a block-deletion like that, picking the low-hanging fruit like this makes sense. But “why are you deleting this and not that” is ultimately just a WP:WAX argument. FOARP (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of these cite a reliable source which can be used to verify the subject's existence, and the burden of proof for these is on those who want to retain the content. A listing in the Iranian census is not evidence that the subject exists because the Iranian census frequently lists entries which are not populated places. Some of them cite the GEOnet Names Server, but this is not a reliable source either. Even if a source does exist WP:GEOLAND only grants near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places, and I don't think an entry in the Iranian census counts for this. Populated places which aren't legally recognised have to meet the WP:GNG, and these clearly don't. Hut 8.5 18:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - There is no evidence that these are notable populated places. The census is not a reliable source for this as it lists census tracts which were designated for the purpose of counting people, not officially recognized places. –dlthewave ☎ 03:45, 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 Maariv (newspaper). ✗plicit 00:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zman Tel Aviv[edit]

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

Virtually no information is provided about this local newspaper. It is best redirected to its parent, Maariv (newspaper). gidonb (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Israel. gidonb (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maariv (newspaper) Lethweimaster (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above Spudlace (talk) 19:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you for your support! Please also note this AfD's sibling, Yedioth Tel Aviv. 05:25, 9 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.