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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Barone[edit]

Richard A. Barone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seemingly non-notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Article has been edited by multiple users who seem to be tied to Barone, one of whom admitted they were "part of a development group" which created the article. TraderCharlotte (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like to include a note to the article subject (in case they see the discussion; I haven't notified them) every time I nominate a person's biography for deletion, so I would like to note to Mr. Barone that just because your article is nominated for deletion, it doesn't mean that your achievements are any less impressive. Wikipedia has strict guidelines for who qualifies for an article. Also, just because this article is nominated, it doesn't necessarily mean that the article will be deleted, this is just a discussion among Wikipedia editors meant to determine what will happen. TraderCharlotte (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, United States of America, and Ohio. Justiyaya 06:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Primary sources and mentions - that's all I found. Fails WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOME and WP:GNG Kazanstyle (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't find any mention of this person that distinguishes him. He has worked in financial services, runs a family office, and is successful enough to have some very nice hobby interests. He isn't notable by Wikipedia criteria. No secondary or tertiary references, other than a few glancing mentions. Lots of primary sources which doesn't work for WP:NPOV or WP:RS.--FeralOink (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• DeletePrimary sources lacks notability.183.82.108.172 (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No third-party reliable sources discuss him with anything but trivial coverage; fails WP:GNG. Given the recreation and apparent interest in a firm of some kind in having an article on this person, the article might need to be salted as well to prevent us from having to come back in a year to have this discussion again. - Aoidh (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Organisation of Communists of Italy (Marxist–Leninists)[edit]

Organisation of Communists of Italy (Marxist–Leninists) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Small and unknown local group without the slightest relevance. The page, devoid of sources, is written in two lines and merely states that this group existed. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article is being expanded, now referenced, notability clairified. Whilst the expansion isn't completed, italiens APO: ausser- und antiparlamentarische Gruppen der italienischen Linken und Ultralinken clearly has in-depth coverage, albeit Google Books snippet view makes it difficult to fully incorporate all relevant material. Judging from foot notes, there are numerous citations to mainstream press outlets (like Le Monde) indicating that the group was notable during its initial period of existence. --Soman (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - in Panorama, no. 567-575. Mondadori, 1977. p. 62 there is an article on the group (here called 'Oci'). The snippet view is terrible - but there are few factoids possible to deduce. It affirms that Oci was generally unknown to the general public, until issuing a manifesto in 1977 distributed in 50,000 copies, which made the group known. Moreover, it implies that Oci gained the trust of the CPC leadership, following the right-ward turn in the party leadership in China. Reading between lines, I'd presume that the new leadership in China enabled the mass distribution of OOCd'I(m-l)/Oci literature, but that's speculative on my behalf. --Soman (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - however, the alphabet soup of Italian ML movement has even me confounded...
  • http://www.misteriditalia.it/il68/fine-nascita/organizzazioni/imarxisti-leninisti.pdf , which I'm not sure qualifies as WP:RS mentions both a "Ed è proprio da questa che all’inizio del 1969 esce un gruppetto legato a Claudio Castellani che fonda una ennesima formazione m-l: l’Organizzazione dei Comunisti Italiani (m-l), con organo di stampa La Voce Rivoluzionaria." as well as further down "Dal PCd’I (m-l) (linea nera) viene espulso anche Pesce che fonda L’Organizzazione dei Comunisti (m-l) d’Italia con il giornale Linea proletaria." This in contrast to Berner (1973), essentially the ref currently used on the 1968 split in the article, which affirms that Pesce joined the Linea Rossa party. Berner (1973) states that Linea Rossa changes name to OCd'I(m-l) in 1971.
  • However, see also Bordone, S. (1983). LA NORMALIZZAZIONE DEI RAPPORTI TRA PCC E PCI. Il Politico, 48(1), 115–158. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43096971 ("Nel dicembre dello stesso anno la segreteria del PCd'I (m-l) fu acusata di essere la « linea nera » del partito - la stessa accusa era stata mossa in Cina a Liu Shaoqi - e venne espulsa in quanto « pugno di controrivoluzionari, cricca di rinnegati, infiltrati in posizione di potere ». La nuova segreteria, composta da Gracci, Dini e Sartori, rappresentava la « linea rossa », i veri rivoluzionari. La testata del giornale (dopo la scissione erano usciti una « Nuova Unità linea rossa » e una « Nuova Unità linea nera »), la cassa del partito ed il materiale propagandistico dei compagni cinesi rimase alla « linea nera », che venne riconosciuta da Pechino e da Tirana. Questa a sua volta subiva una scissione: Pesce, espulso dal partito con l'accusa di « separatismo ideologico e massimalismo », portava con sè una larga fetta di militanti e dava vita all'Organizzazione dei Comunisti (m-l) d'Italia col giornale « Linea proletaria ».")
  • the name given in Bordone (1983) somehwat matches the name used here: https://www.ebay.it/itm/202106175360 --Soman (talk) 17:48, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://web.archive.org/web/20200807154205/http://www.osvaldopesce.it/ pretty much settles that Pesce would not have been in Linea Rossa group, reverting my edits now --Soman (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Soman It does not seem to me that these sources demonstrate the encyclopedic relevance of this group, on the contrary... The page remains written in a single line.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Check the article history. I began an expansion, but effectively it was a dead end since one of the sources conflates the Pesce and Linea Rossa groups, so I reverted. I'm working on a draft. At this stage I think it's safe to say that 1) the names assigned to this faction varies a little bit, Peking Review used the English translation ' Organisation of Communists of Italy (Marxist–Leninists)', but in Italian the group itself used either 'Organizzazione dei comunisti marxisti-leninisti d’Italia' or 'Organizzazione dei comunisti (marxisti-leninisti) d’Italia'. See for example here: http://www.ifontanaritorremaggioresi.com/images/Linea-Proletaria_7.jpg , which both versions appearing on same page. I was a bit confused by the Organization of Italian Communists (ML), but that seems confirmed to have been a separate group. So the Organization of Communists of Italy (Marxist–Leninists) would be the Pesce group (i.e. the subject of this AfD) 2) Whilst PCUd'I was formed through a merger, I think it's safe to consider it a continuation of the Organization of Communists of Italy (Marxist–Leninists) (considering the 1977 congress as its '3rd congress', continuing to publish Linea proletaria) so I'd say we can Redirect this article to Unified Communist Party of Italy. 3) the factoid about the Bolongna Communist Committee (ML) in the earlier version seems to have been a misrepresentation of a source, rather the committee would have merged to the organization. Can't find a WP:RS, though. --Soman (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Soman I saw that you had expanded the page considerably. it is an underground political formation, so reconstructing its history is extremely complicated. However, if there have been proven international ties, the topic may have some meaning. My question is: Was the congress of the Unified Communist Party of Italy in 1978 numbered as third? In this circumstance, PCUdI would be the political continuation of OCd'I(m-l) de facto, right? If so, I think the most logical solution would be te merger of the pages. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Scia Della Cometa, exactly. PCUd'I considering its 1978 as its "3rd party congress", thus affirming that they saw themselves as the continuity of OC(m-l). Thus I think redirect is ok. --Soman (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good. I see you have started a new article on the Communist Party of Italy (Marxist-Leninist) Red Line, I have some doubts about the necessity of stand-alone article even in that case, but let's talk on its talk page.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Some political parties are extra-parliamentary by nature, but still they deserve an article on their own. Sources can be found and the article can be expanded. Thanks to User:Soman for what he is going to do to improve the article and let it survive. --Checco (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it is now - single-sentence article, unsourced, no inherent notability. P1221 (talk) 10:13, 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!} 20:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or draftify Unsourced article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:49, 7 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!} 23:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It seemed to me that there was already consent to delete the page or transform it into a redirect: only one user has expressed himself for the maintenance (but the same user expresses himself for the maintenance of any page, regardless of the content), while also the author himself of the page admitted that another page already exists on the same party and that this one is not needed. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, another admin will come by in a few days and close this AFD. Perhaps they will see the discussion as you do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 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. Keep after rewriting article and removing resume-like content. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Rumley[edit]

Dennis Rumley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't believe this person meets the notability guidelines for an article. Not only is the article written like a resume, but a cursory Google search only brings up co-authored/ university course books and his faculty page. Lindsey40186 (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Did a Google search and nothing useful came up. Even if something's found, I think this article would still have to be deleted per WP:TNT. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the List of Australia-related deletion discussions. JarrahTree 06:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete Vanity spam resume, not article-worthy. I find no sources. Oaktree b (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - badly formatted article yes, however notable geographer in relation to Indian Ocean studies and - check https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/category/research?keyword=dennis%20rumley and https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/category/books?keyword=dennis%20rumley JarrahTree 06:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I found enough published book reviews from this search to make a case for WP:AUTHOR, and he may also have a case for WP:PROF#C5. But this is such a bad case of WP:LIKERESUME that I think WP:TNT applies, unless someone wants to take the effort to make a ground-up rewrite. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep definitely notable, its not a vanity as the article has been around for 15 years(since 2007), and subject to edits by multiple people during that time. According to afd guidelines nominating an article for deletion is not how an article goes through the clean process. Gnangarra 08:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep The article was terribly written, but I have revised fairly substantially and added citations. Based on the sources I found his research has been influential, and he was founding chief editor of a significant journal in his field, so is clearly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lijil (talk • contribs) 04:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well-published professor (his publications page). Lamona (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would help to review the work done on this article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like a Keep based on the rewrite.--Jahaza (talk) 06:03, 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 keep. Squeaks by with Weak Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Eye: Skilltree Saga[edit]

The Dark Eye: Skilltree Saga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sources don't come close to passing WP:PRODUCT. ––FormalDude talk 11:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, and Germany. ––FormalDude talk 11:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Dark Eye#Video games as a WP:ATD. Does not seem to be standalone notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep or Merge per WP:ATD to The Dark Eye. Eurogamer is an RS and meets SIGCOV. the other two are routine, non-significant descriptions, so doesn't count towards GNG. Otherwise, searching on Metacritic, Google, News, Books... doesn't find much RS. Still, ref 1 and 2 are RS (despite the latter being a very brief press announcement), so maybe preserving some of the content from the refs through merging would be helpful? I think redirecting is also okay, but would oppose deletion.... After further evaluation, the third ref is debatable. It's mostly just a game description, but with some evaluations (The work of Silent Dreams studio is a low-budget product, so there is nothing to expect from it graphic fireworks. The storyline and exploration of the world are presented here on boards with static, two-dimensional graphics and but it is intended for a younger, casual audience). However, its description is also long enough to be considered significant probably. I don't think it's an RS, but it's listed as so in WP:VGRS, so it's hence a likely RS that is probably SIGCOV. In this case, we have 2 refs counting to GNG, so it's very borderline, but I'm open to either merging or keeping. IMHO, after a couple of days this could be closed as keep. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 03:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. According to WP:VGRS Eurogamer is RS, and the coverage seems to meet WP:SIGCOV. Same for gamepressure (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#www.gry-online.pl). IGN is reliable but the review is video or too short too meet SIGCOV. The article is a substub that needs expansion but I see no compelling reason to redirect this right now. Expansion seems warranted. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Dark Eye#Video games. While the Eurogamer Germany review exists and on the first glance it looks decent in coverage, after reading it in detail, I've realized it offers very little information about the game at all. The whole thing is more of the reviewer's rant about his bad experience, with the only features being mentioned: automatic battle, the boss appearing every ten levels and two pay to win currencies (and of course, none of these were discussed beyond pure mentions). Fails WP:GNG but should be preserved per WP:ATD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, as there is all right content from an RS, probably selecively merging the content from the refs would be better. I've read it, and it is quite negative without too much info, but still okay for merging. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get firmer consensus to redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I still oppose just a redirect- there may be criticism that the Eurogamer review isn't very informative, but it's still a RS with good info I feel is worth preserving. Jovanmilic97, is there really nothing here that could be briefly mentioned in that article? Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep per Piotrus, sourcing seems above the bar though not great. Hobit (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just scrapes by on WP:SIGCOV, as per Piotr. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like a stronger move now to Keep, rather than redirect or merge this article. Let's give it a little more time to solidify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per Piotrus. I also found this short test in German which does read independent (they're not impressed by the game), although I'm not sure about the reliability of the site. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:05, 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 delete. ✗plicit 01:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chip McAllister[edit]

Chip McAllister (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lacks notability; fails WP:NACTOR. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Missouri. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass either criteria of WP:NACTOR. BrigadierG (talk) 19:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet NACTOR.183.82.108.172 (talk) 01:18, 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subhrojit Saha[edit]

Subhrojit Saha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I was going through this article and saw that the subject is failing WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, as the references are about his breakup, and relationship. According to GNG the subject should have in-depth coverages from reliable sources. But the subject doesn't have a single source which is in-depth and reliable. And according to me the reviewer of the article should be more sensitive because the reviewer reviewed the article after 3 minutes right after the editor finished the article creation. So i thing the reviewer User:Fitindia should be more sensitive during the time of reviewing article. As he has 70k + edit count. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nomadwikiholic (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nomadwikiholic, this is not the place for negative comments about the Wikipedia volunteer who reviewed the article (an endless and thankless task). MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @MrsSnoozyTurtle:What do you expect from a new user with less than 50 edits, jumping into AFD nominations ? Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:53, 7 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!} 23:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As playing a significant role in 3 notable TV shows is enough to pass WP:NACTOR and out of all three tv shows he played the lead role in 2 of them. Also, it should be noted that the first point under "A topic is presumed to merit an article if:" at WP:GNG reads " It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right" and in that case WP:NACTOR #1 is met "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". 113.193.45.34 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Inadequate nomination. Notability criteria are met. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 03:37, 15 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 Deep Freeze Mice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Thurston Lava Tube[edit]

The Thurston Lava Tube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to The Deep Freeze Mice. One of several Alan Jenkins post-Mice projects - worth covering there. --Michig (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to The Deep Freeze Mice.183.82.108.172 (talk) 01:19, 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!} 23:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnasura[edit]

Krishnasura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No references (RS) found to support wide coverage for notability. There are references about a tree called Krishnasura [1], but not the asura king. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and India. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete. No sources, no info, no AfC. WP:V. BrigadierG (talk) 19:48, 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!} 23:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Democrats of the Left. This article is unsourced so it Merger didn't seem like a feasible option. Still, some reader might use this name as a search term and it's good to point them to an article where this group is mentioned. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reformists for Europe[edit]

Reformists for Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very small and unknown political group; from the page, written in four lines and devoid of sources, no encyclopedic relevance can be deduced. It could be at most integrated into the "Factions" section of the "Democrats of the Left" page. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wikipedia is great especially when it gathers information on little-known subjects. This article could be easily merged to a larger one, but, for the sake of readers, it is better to have it as a stand-alone one. Indeed, that makes it easier to follow its political path. The Reformists for Europe was a political party and later a faction within the Democrats of the Left, it was mentioned and linked in the latter's website, as the party gave big importance to organised factions (a rupture from the Italian Communist Party's democratic centralism). This, like all of them, deserve an article of its own. It it is not possible to keep it as I would like, an alternative (worse) solution would be to merge it either with Democratic Union (Italy) or Democrats of the Left, in order to preserve the article's history, at least. --Checco (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia also provides for topics to have significant coverage in sources, otherwise they don't meet the principles of general notability. In this case a merge with Democrats of the Left page would make sense (it was one of its internal factions), a standalone article would not.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Might be completely made-up from what I can gather. No sources are given at all. It is not even clear what it is exactly, since it is not defined as a party but as a "group". Yakme (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article doesn't cite any source, so I agree with Yakme (the article might be completely made up). From what I can find online, the article's subject is just a faction internal to the Democrats of the Left party, not a party. I don't think internal factions deserve a standalone article (unless they are really notable, i.e. they are the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject). At most, the subject can be merged with Democrats of the Left, but only if properly sourced. P1221 (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It is clearly not easy to find source on a minor political grouping disbanded 15 years ago and I have no chance of going to the library and looking for newspapers from the 1990s. However, there is no doubt that it existed,[2][3] originally as a splinter group from Democratic Union and later as a faction of the Democrats of the Left—see list from the party's old website. If a stand-alone article is not viable, at least please merge it with Democrats of the Left. --Checco (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that something exists doesn't mean that it deserves an article in Wikipedia. P1221 (talk) 14:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. The way I see it, there's not much content at the page now to merge and not much opportunity to expand it. Might be plausible they meet ORG based on offline sources, I don't really know, but it doesn't really matter for now since we'd not be losing any sourced content with a straight-up redirect. Don't see any issues with the content that needs actual deletion, it's just unsourced. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:26, 7 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!} 23:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Mitterrand[edit]

Jacques Mitterrand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No references Rathfelder (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and France. Rathfelder (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the fr.wiki article has several references Mccapra (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: several good sources found in less than five minutes, like [4], [5], and probably [6]. BilletsMauves^€500 07:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As it stands the English article says next to nothing and is useless. The French version is indeed better, and an English article based on it might be OK, but it's the job of people who want to keep it to do that. Even the French article fails to address the question that most readers coming to it for the first time will ask: what is the relationship between Jacques Mitterrand and François Mitterrand? Even if the answer is "none known" (which I doubt) it's still a response that ought to be given. Athel cb (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

but it's the job of people who want to keep it to do that. Absolutely not! ALL Wikipedia editors are equal and AfDd articles are NOT held hostage by a nominating class until a lower class of Wikipedian fixes an article! gidonb (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources found by BilletsMauves. The concerns mentioned by Athel cb do not amount to a case for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable per WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO #3. Also speedy keep since no valid reason for deletion was provided. Can be combined since the outcome would be the same. These mistaken nominations happen when we do not work by WP:NEXIST. So a shoutout to this important section of the Wikipedia:Notability guideline! gidonb (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• " An article without references, especially a biography of a living person, may be deleted." Rathfelder (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely! It may be kept and it may be deleted. This one will be kept. So when to AfD? WP:N puts it, big, bold, and named: Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. AfD is not cleanup. When an article has no references and it is VERY notable, it should only be tagged with the correct template. Not AfDd. gidonb (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Due to the sources found by BilletsMauves. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep References from BilletsMauves now included. This clearly meets notability guidelines. JASpencer (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets WP:GNG per BilletsMauves's sources above. AfD is not cleanup and while I cannot stress enough that WP:BEFORE is not required, in this case it might have saved us all from having to have this discussion, as sources are very easily found making it obvious that this article does not suffer from a lack of notability. - Aoidh (talk) 04:14, 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 speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator). (non-admin closure) Ovinus (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Knockbridge GAA[edit]

Knockbridge GAA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Long-ago contested PROD. A village amateur group; no evidence of NORG-level notability that I could find. Per Guliolopez, suggest redirect to Knockbridge#Sport. Ovinus (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Revised 01:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Ireland. Ovinus (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. While a "village amateur" club (a description applicable to almost any GAA club), there is evidence of material coverage in regional and (importantly for the guideline) national newspapers. Including regionals in the Independent News & Media stable ([7] [8] [9]), and nationally in the Irish Examiner ([10]). While not overwhelming, deletion doesn't seem an appropriate approach. While, personally, I think a standalone article is warranted, if others disagree then merge/redirection to Knockbridge#Sport would seem an appropriate alternative to deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for adding new sources, and I missed many of them during my search; didn't really know how the GAA works. I would say it might pass GNG through the sources, but they don't have sufficient depth (on, say, the history of the club) for WP:NORG. [11] has a little bit, not much. A redirect to Knockbridge#Sport per WP:ATD would be excellent. Ovinus (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Hiya. In terms of the:

• Redirect suggestion - in this update to the original nom you added "Per Guliolopez, suggest redirect to [[Knockbridge#Sport]]". For avoidance of doubt, my recommendation is to "keep" a standalone article. My "redirect" suggestion was, as stated, only as a (fallback) ATD. While I hope that's (now) clear, I'm not sure your updated nom has fully reflected my actual recommendation.
• "[independent/reliable sources] on, say, the history of the club" - I've found and added a source (The Sunday Times (UK)) which covers the history and foundation of the club. Given that it's paywalled, I added a quote. To aid in VER.

All the best. Guliolopez (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sources. Notability is at least plausible imo, so I'm withdrawing this nomination as there haven't been any other deletion votes and I think leaving it open would be wasting the community's time. Ovinus (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sufficient references in the national press to establish notability. The GAA'S amateur status shouldn't come into this, it's entirely irrelevant. Finnegas (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Let's make a source table:

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://irelandxo.com/ireland-xo/history-and-genealogy/timeline/foundation-knockbridge-gaa-club				✘ No
https://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/arid-40059158.html				✘ No
https://www.independent.ie/regionals/argus/sport/other-sports/knockbridge-win-their-first-hurling-cship-26924171.html			? Probably doesn't satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH; it's only about a game they played and doesn't talk about history or other aspects	? Unknown
https://www.gaa.ie/hurling/news/louth-shc-final-knockbridge-overcome-st-fechins/		value not understood	value not understood	✘ No
https://www.independent.ie/sport/hurling/more-joy-for-danesfort-26350637.html				✘ No
https://www.independent.ie/regionals/louth/sport/gaa/st-fechins-star-sean-kerrisk-completes-unique-louth-gaa-title-tally-its-great-when-youre-winning-41895985.html	? interview		focuses on a particular player	✘ No
https://www.hoganstand.com/county/louth/article/index/224248			Doesn't satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH—it's only about a game	✘ No
https://hoganstand.com/Louth/article/index/290927			Doesn't satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH—it's only about a game	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

I agree their amateur status has no bearing on their notability, but it's very unintuitive (to me) that we should have articles on individual GAA clubs. All that said, I'm an American and maybe don't understand the importance or nature of GAA. Ovinus (talk) 01:22, 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 delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Lamb[edit]

Roland Lamb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article about an entrepreneur, who seems to have invented a musical instrument; Article has been tagged as needing more sources since 2020. I am sorry sto say so: Yes, Mr. Lamb has had an idea, and now has a company that markets this idea. So do many other entrepreneurs. I do ont see from the description in the article, how the person is notable. In addition: A quick google search did not yield independent relaialbe sources. In short, I propose this article be deleted.Eptalon (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to ROLI. Lamb is not independently notable from what I can find. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to ROLI independently fails notability guidelines.183.82.108.172 (talk) 01:21, 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 European Taekwondo Championships. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2005 European Taekwondo Championships[edit]

2005 European Taekwondo Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This topic sounds like it ought to be notable, but it’s sourced only to a database and I can’t find any in depth coverage. Mccapra (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Latvia. Mccapra (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a continental sports event, I think this article "should" exist, so I think deleting is not the action to take here. Is tagging it with ((refimprove)) sufficient? Simeon (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it’s possible if we are confident improved refs exist, otherwise we’re asking for an improvement that can’t be made. Mccapra (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I didn't find the coverage I believe is required to meet WP:GNG. I found results and some basic sports coverage, but not what I would call significant independent coverage of the event itself. The mere fact that it's a continental championship does not grant automatic WP notability. I also looked at the 2006 and 2008 event articles and they both have few or no references at all--definitely nothing that shows WP:GNG is met. I thought about adding them to this AfD, but will wait to see what happens with this discussion. The burden of proof is on those claiming notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I had a look for sources like others have, but I also wasn’t able to find much independent coverage. As said, it sounds like it ought to be notable. However, the article fails WP:GNG and unfortunately should be deleted unless someone is able to find some reliable independent sources. Fats40boy11 (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment will if nobody can find anything perhaps we should redirect to European Taekwondo Championships? Mccapra (talk) 06:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect to above as plausible term. I think that would be a better option than deletion, so I have changed my mind slightly. However, there is not enough sources so we can’t keep the article in its current form unless someone can somehow find something that no one has currently been able to find. Fats40boy11 (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect as an option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The problem with the redirect is that the target article also doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. I did check some of the pages for these championships for other years, besides the ones I previously mentioned, and none of them also seem to have significant independent coverage. The only sources seem to be lists of results and that doesn't seem sufficient to show WP notability to me. If something is to be kept, it seems like the proposed redirection target is better than lots of individual articles that don't meet WP:GNG. Objectively, I'd say none of them meet WP notability criteria, but I'm willing to be flexible. Papaursa (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to European Taekwondo Championships. While it's possible that the redirect target also isn't notable, that's a separate discussion for a separate AfD, if one is to happen. This AfD is singularly about this article, and this article does not have significant coverage in reliable sources and fails WP:GNG. However, European Taekwondo Championships is a viable redirect target as it currently stands. - Aoidh (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds sensible to me. Mccapra (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Nealson[edit]

Beth Nealson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Biography of a smalltown mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, mayors are not automatically notable just because they exist, and must be shown to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing -- and no, the fact that Leaside became a neighbourhood of Toronto 30 years after Nealson's term as mayor of Leaside ended does not mean that Nealson gets an "inherent" notability freebie on "Leaside became part of Toronto + mayors of Toronto would be notable = mayors of Leaside are notable" grounds, because a mayor's notability is contingent on the sourcing and substance present in the article and not just on a "some cities' mayors get an automatic inclusion freebie" basis.
But the sourcing here isn't establishing that she would pass GNG; the footnotes are a photograph, a glancing namecheck of her existence in an article on the broad phenomenon of women in municipal politics, and one blog article about the time she ran and lost against another woman -- which means there's only one source here that's actually about Beth Nealson in any non-trivial sense, which is nowhere near enough to establish notability on this basis. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the one source mentioning her in the title does not seem substantial enough to lend notability.

ForksForks (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in light of improved sourcing, establishing Beth Nealson's notability as the first woman mayor in Metropolitan Toronto and the last mayor of Leaside, Ontario, and her involvement in a historic and unusual battle between two female incumbents in a mayor's race in 1966. Most in-depth articles over the years include her 1994 obituary in the Toronto Star; a 2014 article in the Torontoist, published by Daily Hive Toronto, an online news source, which focuses on her election battle against the outspoken True Davidson but also includes details about Nealson's life throughout; and a 1966 Canadian Press (CP) article syndicated nationally and published in The Montreal Gazette, which included quotes from both Nealson and Davidson, but also incorporated key facts about each candidate as reported by the news agency. Additional interview-driven feature articles may not be as useful in establishing notability, but nevertheless demonstrate sustained interest in Nealson over the years, also outside of Toronto, including this 1961 profile in The Montreal Star, and this 1965 feature in The Windsor Star. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Current sourcing is more than adequate for WP:GNG. pburka (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per WP:HEY. The article as it currently stands has significant coverage in independent reliable sources and meets WP:GNG. Kudos to Cielquiparle for putting in the effort of improving the article and its sources. - Aoidh (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - lots of coverage has been added to the article. Nfitz (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Noting also that the article is very different to the one deleted four years ago. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Win Development[edit]

In Win Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

In Win

In Win Development, run-of-the-mill computer case and computer power supply company. This draft reads like an advertisement, and does not refer to any significant coverage by third parties. I put Notability and Tone tags on the article, which were reverted with the edit summary: "Where is the advertising? Point out the problems on the talk page instead of drive-by tagging". I haven't asked the author about COI. I haven't read the 2018 article, but this article doesn't appear to focus on anything since 2018, so that the 2018 AFD should be presumptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Taiwan. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as author. There is massive significant third-party coverage about the company in Global Sources 2004, third-party significant coverage about the company in Bloomberg (the two-page article in the print edition signals In Win as the clear focus), significant third-party coverage about the company in CRN—need I go on? WP:MILL is an essay and tantamount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Yes, it's a pretty basic computer case company, but they're also a very big player in their field. I have no conflict of interest in In Win or in any computer company. Hell, I haven't even paid for one of their cases. I just know them from word-of-mouth and found it strange they don't have their own article. I am aware of the very promotional and probably COI-created version of the article that was deleted in 2018. I have not referred to that version in any way for the creation of mine—I wrote it from scratch. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:NCORP, as properly sourced to RS such as Custom PC and Computer Shopper. Author has declared they have no COI, and per their user page, regularly contributes to computer-related articles; I would have good reason to assume that this version of the article is nothing like the one deleted in 2018. Yeeno (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per the compelling arguments of the author. PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I came here from the DYK nom. The article may have some issues, but a lack of notability is not one of them. It also doesn't read like and advertisement, and previous contributions by DigitalIceAge make a COI seem unlikely. I think that the article could use some work, but that doesn't mean it need be deleted. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While I have no comment on whether there is an advertising issue with the text of the article itself, the article does appear to satisfy both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. - Aoidh (talk) 04:42, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rented Lips[edit]

Rented Lips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sources mostly user generated. Only one review. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is a second critic review by Douglas Pratt at Rotten Tomatoes. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All content is now verified by sources Ertoe (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've expanded the article and added some reviews from both its short theatrical run as well as its home video release. The reviews are kind of funny in that they absolutely slaughter this film. I haven't seen reviews this uniformly unkind in a while. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:50, 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 no consensus. There are only three participants after two relists, and I don't see more people coming because the discussion has burned out. The opinions are evenly split. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Great Britain and Ireland PGA Cup golfers[edit]

I am also nominating the following related page because for the same reason:

List of American PGA Cup golfers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Great Britain and Ireland PGA Cup golfers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

These pages clearly fail WP:NLIST. I have no clue how they got past administrators originally. Oogglywoogly (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Golf, Ireland, United Kingdom, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. jp×g 03:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It'd be useful to know why specifically it fails NLIST. Personally I find NLIST a bit unclear. Doesn't the fact that the search "PGA Cup player" turns up a reasonably long list mean that the topic is notable, eg "Bevan, a two-time PGA Cup player" https://www.pga.info/news/captain-bevan-upbeat-as-first-three-players-for-pga-cup-team-revealed/ ? Having said that, I'm inclined to think that the lists would be better simply being added to the main article PGA Cup in a more compact style. Nigej (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably the same is true for, say, List of Continental Europe Seve Trophy golfers where the main article Seve Trophy is short enough (and not likely to get much larger) that the lists could be added there. Nigej (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I'd argue that since they are essentially a split from PGA Cup (an article that would become unwieldy with the lists merged), they aren't standalone lists so NLIST doesn't apply. The real question is whether listing PGA Cup players is encyclopedic or violates NOT in some way. I lean towards the lists being ok but could be swayed by a convincing argument. It may be useful to create the corresponding category tree for navigation. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure they would make it unwieldy. Removing the table aspect and turning it into a multi-column list would work ok I think. Nigej (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If is is determined that the content is encyclopedic but not in these lists, then merge is an appropriate WP:ATD. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Some users have questions why this defies WP:NLIST. When I proposed the PGA Cup pages for deletion I was specifically thinking about List of Canadian winners on the PGA and LPGA Tours, a page I successfully proposed for deletion earlier this year. Other users referenced WP:NLIST as a guideline to suggest deletion. I'm not saying the PGA Cup members list and Canadian list are identical but, in my opinion, they are similarly indulgent list pages with little context to suggest why they are valuable. With the PGA Cup, I'm sort of surprised this event has a page at all. It's a little known tournament between club professionals. There are only four or five third-party sources on the event's page - enough to meet our standards but barely. On these list pages, the overwhelming majority of golfers don't even have Wikipedia pages. Even though I tend to focus on obscure stuff here, I'm just not sure why we care about this event at all. And in general I thought it was our mission to get away from these metastasizing statistical tables and lists and focus more on substantive issues (i.e. prose). Instead, another list!

Oogglywoogly (talk) 05:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

As to notability of the golfers, NLIST specifically says "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" and anyway, I suspect some of the red-linked golfers are notable. As to the event, I think the two PGAs (British and US) would be very disappointed at you being so dismissive of it, which they regard as a showcase event, a sort of Club Pros Ryder Cup. As to coverage see eg this https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0_89AAAAIBAJ&pg=4332%2C5005381 from 1984 where coverage is ahead of that for the second round of the Dutch Open. Similar coverage in the London papers (Telegraph, Guardian). Or this from 1986 https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JLZAAAAAIBAJ&pg=3004%2C5409506 and this https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=jg01AAAAIBAJ&pg=2319%2C5910943 from 1988. The other issue is that these sort of lists are meant to be an aid for editors writing articles, as they appear in the "What Links Here" list, so aren't necessarily going to be too exciting as articles in their own right. Nigej (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I came across as rude or dismissive in the most recent post and in other posts. I do think the PGA Cup is a notable event and worthy of a page. But I also think it is a somewhat obscure event and I'm not sure if it really needs an independent page that lists every player that has ever played in the event. We do have players lists pages for other events like the Ryder Cup but the Ryder Cup is obviously much, much better known event than the PGA Cup. Meanwhile major championships like the Masters or U.S. Open - perhaps the two most important tournaments in the history of golf - have no player lists.

You also mention how these pages are useful to editors. Personally I have used your players lists on Australian Men's Interstate Teams Matches and found it very helpful. But I'm not sure if usefulness is a suitable criterion for a published page in an encyclopedia. It may be worthwhile if a user keeps lists like these in a sandbox for reference but I'm not sure if they should be published. Overall, I think we should think about what the reader wants first, not the editor.

Oogglywoogly (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

As I said above, I think you are right here, see WP:NOTPAPER. The content can readily be added to the parent article and this article deleted. We can delete this one, WP:PROD the US one. As I noted above I think we can PROD the Seve Trophy lists too (and perhaps others). Nigej (talk) 05:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nigej: This nom is for both lists. If we are going to merge, then the lists should remain as redirects for attribution. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True, somehow I missed the US article. Nigej (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nigej and wjemather for your responses. Just to be clear, could we confirm for administrators that we want to delete these list pages and put this information on the main page (i.e. PGA Cup). Thanks, Oogglywoogly (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like to see confirmation, is there a proposal to merge these two articles to PGA Cup? I've read over the discussion but a lot of it is about list standards and not about the outcome you are seeking here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect Merge content of the two articles into PGA Cup (in more condensed form) and then redirect there to maintain attribution. Nigej (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've taken the liberty of doing the merge already. See PGA Cup. Nigej (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I feel like we have enough responses to warrant a decision (and specifically a deletion decision). I mean even the creator of these pages, Nigej, supports their deletion and integration onto the main page. Nonetheless, I have written a statement on the WikiProject Golf's talk page to prompt other members to respond on this deletion page. It would be nice if they responded beneath. Oogglywoogly (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Oogglywoogly[reply]

  Please note, merging and redirecting is not deletion. Also, even reduced, I'm still concerned about the proportion of the article taken up by these lists and leaving them split could be better; perhaps that could be done in a single List of PGA Cup golfers article. Unless someone actually thinks the content should be deleted, this discussion could be closed and further discussion on the solution (i.e. merge or not) could be done elsewhere. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 07:46, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Titilia Waqabaca[edit]

Titilia Waqabaca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Andre🚐 22:39, 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 redirect to International Federation of Football History & Statistics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IFFHS World's Best Playmaker[edit]

IFFHS World's Best Playmaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This award has not been covered in depth by independent reliable sources. There are brief mentions of the award by blogs and fansites but no coverage by reputable news organizations. As of now the article is just a collection of stats and Wikipedia is not just stats. You will find no mention of this award from organizations like the BBC or The Guardian.

Previously I redirected this article along with several other obscure IFFHS awards but this has been reverted so I am submitting this article now for discussion. Most of the other articles in Category:International Federation of Football History & Statistics have similarly dubious notability. Eóin (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Football. Eóin (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect The unredirecter claimed WP:ITSIMPORTANT and all sources can be found on their website (presumably not realizing that primary sources cannot establish notability). In doing so, the responsibility falls on them to substantiate their claims with suitable sources, and it has not been met here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect as above. GiantSnowman 18:57, 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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sekola Waqanidrola[edit]

Sekola Waqanidrola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources below which show notability. GiantSnowman 07:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - @GiantSnowman: I found sources like [12], [13], and [14] among many many other sources that show she is notable in Fiji. In addition, she is a young capped international player with an ongoing career. All the other Sports WikiProjects don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 10, but why should any Sports WikiProject have 10 deleted per day? By the time I finish writing this, another ten will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per sources above. I've added some into the article.--IdiotSavant (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per sources above. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:22, 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!} 23:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Road UA[edit]

Road UA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. I found no significant coverage of this font. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it's going to be difficult to write a good article in English on a Ukrainian road font, and I don't see much that is notable about the font. Andre🚐 05:06, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashanee Thompson[edit]

Ashanee Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Barbados. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The relevant guidelines, WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG, require significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 05:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - best I can find is a passing mention in Loop News followed by a squad list mention in the same article Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:52, 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 delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 03:38, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sàndor (Alexandru) Ausch[edit]

Sàndor (Alexandru) Ausch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Essentially, this man took care of his tiny Jewish community, decimated by the Holocaust and emigration. While a laudable pursuit, nothing here really indicates notability as contemplated by WP:NBIO. Yes, he won presidential medals in two countries — but both are routine awards handed out to numerous people every year, hardly rising to the “well-known and significant award or honor” standard set by WP:ANYBIO. Other than that, there isn’t much. I won’t go into every single reference in the article, but for example, this or this doesn’t mention Ausch at all, while this is a phone book entry (trivial mention). What is glaringly lacking is “significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject”. — Biruitorul ^Talk 15:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Biruitorul - in trying to understand your feedback, I think I notice two trends - one is a commentary on the quality of the article, and the other, a comment on the notability of the person.

So I'm interpreting your notes on the references above, as notes on the quality of the article. Specifically, on the quality of the article:

1. Can you please provide some context about why the first reference (listed as 18) is not appropriate? In context, it is used as a reference providing supporting details for the kinds of activity that the Targu Mures society is engaged in (which the subject of the article has been recognized for leading). What would a better reference for that topic look like, in your opiniong (there are dozens of articles on the topic, I'm sure if you provide some guidelines for an improved reference, it's available).

2. The second reference you're mentioning (this) is an interview with Mr. Ausch and mentions him by name directly at least 5 times, never mind quotes him throughout, so I don't know what would make it better as a reference (please elaborate).

3. The third reference you're mentioning backs up the comment that the person in the article was occasionally referred to as the "Rabi" of the community. It is a relatively small mention, but it is included in passed local legislation for the city - ie., a significantly independent source from anything else referenced in the page, which referred to the person as a "Rabi".

Also, I'm not sure why this request for deletion is explicitly cherry picking the least interesting references - the strongest references are press releases from the Hungarian and Romanian national governments (this) and (this) respectively, which I think pass an initial quality bar for the article. Obviously it can and will improve over time, as I think most Wikipedia articles tend to.

More generally, I'm relatively new to wikipedia as a contributor, and I welcome constructive feedback to help improve quality. Eg. if the details about this specific person are not too relevant (maybe we shouldn't care that the local community tended to refer to Mr. Ausch as a Rabi? I'm not sure if that specific factoid passes the bar for what might be included about someone of this level of notability, vs not). Generally speaking, though, if you're talking about a notability argument based on the quality of the article, I think that's (probably) salvageable - with improved references, or possibly less space dedicated to details that might not be interesting or relevant.

---

As far as just notability as a bar for this person, I see significant discussion elsewhere in Wikipedia space on whether one knighthood from a single country, on its own, is a sufficient for notability, and the opinion seems split. That said, after reading through all of the various discussions, I suspect that two separate knighthoods, from two separate un-related nations, clearly pass the bar of public recognition/notability.

For example, the Romanian knighthood ordered referenced is offered via (presidential decree) based on public recommendations by ministers and other notable, nationally recognized, public figures, and has a maximum limit of 5000 knight members over all time (please note that Mr. Ausch was granted the Knighthood, which is limited and has a high bar to pass, as opposed to the Medal, which does not have any limits - see this reference). Membership into a knighthood order which can never contain more than 5000 names, out of currently 20m+ Romanian citizens (plus however many citizens become born / qualified for inclusion over time), (ie. far less than 0.00025 of folk that might be considered for knighthood will ever receive it) implies a significantly high notability bar.

Considering the other knighthood and assuming a similarly high bar for it being granted, we're talking about fewer than 20 people on the planet - so it seems like a reasonable notability bar, and unlikely to spam wikipedia with frivolous references.

keep So I think anyone who has been granted membership into at least two selective knighthood orders, from at least two separate governments (ie., leaving out knighthoods or other awards that are customary or honorary or otherwise not selective), generally passes the notability bar for inclusion into wikipedia Blueberryfiddles (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can find no sources which meet all criteria of WP:GNG. The sources which Blueberryfiddles has outlined as 'the strongest' fail the significant coverage criterion. I also disagree with various of their claims regarding the importance of the order of medals (not knighthood) to which Ausch was appointed. I wish them the best of luck in the future, and invite them to my talk page if they wish to discuss. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- not covered by significant sources, not inherently notable. Dahn (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article fails WP:GNG as it has no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There's an interview (a primary source and not independent) and soft trivial mentions, but nothing that would contribute to the notability of the subject. The awards aren't an indication of notability and are not a part of any notability criteria that I am aware of. - Aoidh (talk) 05:58, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Piet Mollin[edit]

Piet Mollin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails NSPORTS and GNG due to lack of significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 19:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Belgium. –dlthewave ☎ 19:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Dual European champion - see 1929 European Wrestling Championships and 1930 European Wrestling Championships. StAnselm (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per StAnselm. His bio also has info about him being part of the Belgian resistance in WWII and surving a Nazi concentration camp, hinting towards further coverage post 1945 (he competed at the Olympics in 1928). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I originally closed as Keep but I'd really like to see some further sources, not just wikilinks. Let's give it some more time. --Tone 12:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No one has identified any SIGCOV in independent RS (a requirement for any NSPORT-based presumptions of meeting GNG to be remotely valid), and my own google search returned just 3 pages of hits, most of them wiki mirrors. If a website dedicated to researching Olympians can't even determine when this guy died, there's very little reason to expect significant coverage exists. JoelleJay (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The coverage offered by the sources in the article amounts to "Pierre Mollin had the following finishes at major championships", and virtually nothing comes up in a regular search. The topic therefore fails WP:BASIC. Avilich (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete owing to a lack of significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. I also searched under the other names listed in Olympedia but found nothing. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS through the lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Since there's no wrestling-specific guideline (that I'm aware of) WP:SPORTCRIT applies, which is bascially the same as WP:GNG in terms of what it's looking for, and championship wins are not a part of that criteria and do not confer notability based on any guideline that I am aware of. The championship wins would suggest the presence of reliable sources, but in this case that doesn't appear to pan out. - Aoidh (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christi-Anne Mills[edit]

Christi-Anne Mills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:56, 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 The Incal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Metabarons Roleplaying Game[edit]

The Metabarons Roleplaying Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A pnp RPG based on a French comic book series. I've added the sole ref it has now, but (the ref) reads like a press release, and I couldn't locate anything better. No fr interwiki. Unless someone can dig better sources, a ~1 sentence merge with the ref I found and redirect to The Incal might be best? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, Games, and France. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Redirect to The Incal, or Selective Merge. Current ref (ICv2) is probably RS, even so, it's a non significant press release. Found one, clearly non reliable ref. But at best, merging would give a single sentence info that isn't useful. (The press release might also be closely related to the publisher.) On Google, News, Books... no other RS could be found, though WP:ATD make it IMO sensible for at least a redirect, or very selective merge. VickKiang (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect per VickKiang. Andrevan@ 07:18, 1 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) 16:29, 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 merge to Star Wreck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wreck Roleplaying Game[edit]

Star Wreck Roleplaying Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This should have ended as merge in prior AfD (2010), given the votes (one Merge and Redirect, one Keep or Merge). Anyway, this fails WP:GNG, references are limited to publisher page and a passing mention (single sentence) in a column on games on a website of unclear reliability. BEFORE is not showing anything (although there's a tiny chance RS exist in Finnish - although there is no interwiki). The topic is currently mentioned as a see also in Star_Wreck, arguably it should have a sentence or two about in in the main body - but stand alone article does not seem warranted due to lack of notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Games, and Finland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect to Star Wreck, with at most an one-sentence merged mention only. The current refs are clearly not enough to meet WP:GNG. The first ref is an iffy website, with unclear about us/editorial policies. Plus, it's a non-significant mention. The second ref is also clearly non-indepedent/non-RS. I've also searched the Finnish Lautapeliopas, which we say is RS on the BTG Sources section, with no results. It only appears otherwise on RPG Geek, a subsidary of BGG. Otherwise, none of the sources meet GNG at all. It's possible to merge, but considering that none of the refs seem to be clear and cut RS, and the only debatable one cover the subject very trivially, this current one in discussion is filled with WP:OR, so at most only a one sentence mention is needed IMO (not that different to redirecting). Update: one maybe RS below here makes me change my mind and support selectively merging this, and perhaps some of the other possibly RS below they're trivial and non SIGCOV, but could still be used for the merge. Right now, the there's only one ref counting towards WP:GNG, but there's some RS to support a merge (I guess Pelit is RS with WP article), so I might support that then redirecting. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect per VickKiang. Andrevan@ 07:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Star Wreck. I did find a few Finnish sources, but only one of these is of any meaningful length:

• News story by Pelit magazine: [15]
• Tiny single-paragraph press release looking news story from Yle: [16]
• Short news story about an award in Turun Sanomat: [17]

Not convinced that sufficient coverage for WP:GNG exists based on my (admittedly quick) search. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ljleppan Thanks, that should at least allow us to add some refs to the mention in the main article after merge (rather than referencing the publisher's website...). Btw, the award the game got was "Out of the Box or Outie awards" (Out of the Box eli Outie-palkinnot) according to google translate, but I can't find out much about it. It's not the The Outies. I can't find anything about this award in English (I tried on BGG too, which lists many regional board game awards...)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google doesn't appear to be of help here, but another Wikipedia article led me to this archived page: [18]. Our article on the author, Kenneth Hite, says He also wrote the "Out of the Box" column, initially for the GamingReport, and later for IndiePressRevolution.. So I think this "award" is nothing widely recognized. All that said, I'm rather far from my domain of expertise here. Ljleppan (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, for now unless anyone finds something better can conclude that this game received some very minor award that doesn't help to establish the notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with thanks to @Ljleppan for finding some sources! Hobit (talk) 12:48, 3 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) 16:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Star Wreck - I agree with all of the above votes - the game does not have the sources to support an independent article, but does have enough that discussing it on the main page of the franchise it was based on would be appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 15:21, 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 keep. WP:SNOW close - consensus that the subject meets WP:GNG. No support found for arguments given for deletion. (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wife guy[edit]

Wife guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article on term that has little to no actual real world presence / relevance outside of a very niche audience on Twitter and, at best, minor humor articles on other websites. Simply put, while I hate to be a downer to a funny page - legitimizing phrases like "Antoine Lavoisier, noted as history's first wife guy." via having a Wikipedia article would indicate this website has about the same threshold for relevance as KnowYourMeme. As a further note, the popular (And admittedly normally quite good) twitter account Depths of Wikipedia has recently posted the article, so expect some recent attention to the article. *I'd also like to edit in to note that, in the replies of the aforementioned tweet there are users calling to 'defend the article' so, this may not be the most impartial time for a deletion nomination. A MINOTAUR (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Internet. A MINOTAUR (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as creator. What one thinks of a topic and how it is used in the "real world" or otherwise is not relevant for inclusion. What matters is whether it is notable enough that reliable sources have covered it in depth (WP:N). That is the case here, as is evident from the references in the article, e.g.:

• Hess, Amanda (5 June 2019). "The Age of the Internet 'Wife Guy'". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 June 2019.
• Roberts, Meghan (2022-02-14). "How Enlightenment Wife Guys Paved the Way for Instagram PDA". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2022-07-25.
• or, covering the notability of the topic directly: Schwedel, Heather (10 June 2019). "What Is the "Wife Guy"? At Least Five New Articles Have Answers for You!". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 11 June 2019. Sandstein 14:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that I appear to be so far outnumbered in my petition for deletion I would ask if, per this criteria - if there are little/no notable articles made on the phrase in the next 3~ years and it does not readily exist in use "in the real world", would you still consider it worthy of keeping?

Despite recent references that technically fulfill the 'letter of the law' for relevancy, the article if nothing else seems to (at least in my view) suffer from Recentism, more specifically the "transient merits" factor - in general not fulfilling the spirit of the law in my view. A MINOTAUR (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism seems to apply to stuff that is momentarily notable. If something that was first described as early as 2016, and 6 years later in 2022, it seems that it’s not a recent thing at all. I could name loads of things that currently are on Wikipedia that aren’t necessarily in the public consciousness at all. I don’t think AFD is the place to litigate how we think notability guidelines should change. We have a standard right now that is pretty objective, and trying to base deletions on future predictions of notability is a lot more difficult to apply. ForksForks (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems notable- NY Times, NY Mag, The Outline Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with the caveat that I am the one who added the image caption. Per the extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources and the constant references to it in media it's hard to argue against the notability. I don't really think Wikipedia should avoid things that can be funny in a dry, encyclopedic way. Some parts of history or life are just amusing, and I don't think we should intentionally obfuscate that. ForksForks (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG per Sandsteins' sources. Nom's rationale seems to be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is not a valid rationale. Jumpytoo Talk 19:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not. A MINOTAUR (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note article has been linked to by the @depthsofwiki Twitter account. Juxlos (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The AFD seems to have been caused by the twitter posting given the text of the nom ForksForks (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The topic is notable due to the presence of reliable coverage, as noted by other users. The article certainly does have problems with its meme-like sensationalism and focus on certain niche aspects of this topic, but these should be fixed through avenues other than deletion.  Mysterymanblue  01:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is stupid, but that's not a reason for deletion and it seems to pass GNG, unfortunately. Smartyllama (talk) 01:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well used term for years, tons of reliable sources. Blythwood (talk) 02:22, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Siva Sekar (Film & Movie Director)[edit]

Siva Sekar (Film & Movie Director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Poorly-referenced promo article on a non-notable filmmaker. Cites all of one source, and a search finds nothing beyond the usual social media etc. accounts. Was draftified, but creator insists on moving to main space. Earlier speedy request was declined, so here we are at AfD. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO (not to mention WP:BLP). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Tamil Nadu. DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The only source is one sentence and a quote from him, so even that's useless. (P.S. What's the difference between a film and a movie?) Clarityfiend (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. - SUN EYE 1 17:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG , non-notable filmmaker.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Wright (sleep deprivation)[edit]

Tony Wright (sleep deprivation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Biography seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do think the arguments in the original AfD would have tended to a delete outcome, but the argument of WP:BLP1E certainly has stood the test of time. And it's time to go! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For the same reason noted in the original 2014 AfD ie. available sources. There are new sources, continuous coverage addresses BLP1E, example:

Laura Freberg (2015). Discovering Behavioral Neuroscience: An Introduction to Biological Psychology. Cengage Learning. p. 385.

A Google Books search of "Tony Wright" sleep has more I don't want to ref bomb this page or the article but there has been a steady drum beat of coverage because there are only a handful of people claiming to have lasted this long without sleep and his claim is credible-enough for researchers it was "live streamed from a bar in Penzances" and Wright has gone on to do sleep research experiments at Manchester University and he's written a book about it, this was not a 1-time stunt. -- GreenC 15:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:32, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 Győri Audi ETO KC season[edit]

2022–23 Győri Audi ETO KC season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject fails WP:NSEASONS. Many of the citations provided are from the club itself or from the governing bodies for the sport, so they're not independent so I see no case for WP:GNG. My PROD was removed by the article's author and I have doubts the subject will ever be notable so draftify would not be an option. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Handball and Hungary. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep User:Chris troutman have you done any WP:BEFORE? If yes you would have easily found many independent sources about this team. Nemzeti Sport has 2796 articles about Győri. Because this will be a new season and no games are played yet, not a tone of articles are out yet. But they will follow 100 %. The club will play the Champions League and they are one of the favorites for the title. If I look for example at the 2022–23 FC Barcelona Femení season article many sources are also not independent yet. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did preform a BEFORE search. I don't know that Nemzeti Sport is a reliable source. Even if it were, it seems most of the articles are about one player or another, but not discussing this upcoming season as an entity. As an immediatist, I need the present article to make a case for notability. A bunch of seemingly un-related content, especially coming from fans, doesn't impress me. You should also know that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an argument for you to make here. I wish you could see beyond your own partisan, parochial beliefs. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There articles about the new season of the team like: [19], [20], [21] (A new one), [22]. These are independent news medias which discuss the upcoming season. I think this proves the notability of this team season.

I know WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS exists. But it's a little special that there is a double standard between football and handball. You can look at old AfD's of handball which were most of them were "keep" because some people who don't know handball thought handball is not important enough created this AfD's. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is why you have a WP:ILIKEIT viewpoint. We have SNGs to presume notability for sports like American football but that sport also enjoys robust coverage in outlets like ESPN. You're giving me links to kisalfold.hu and I don't know how reliable the source is. Foreign media will always lose out to notable outlets like The New York Times on English-language Wikipedia. Perhaps you think that's unfair. I would suggest this topic would be better received in hu-wiki rather than here. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:30, 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. Nobody has attempted to refute the relevance of the sources added after the nomination. Sandstein 14:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project 315[edit]

Project 315 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

With virtually no inline citations, this article makes a number of large and very sweeping claims that are hard to verify - particularly as the citation and sourcing styles are obfuscatory. Three interviews (Jerusalem Post, Maariv and Israel Today) in mainstream media and a lot of incidental mentions in incidental media are presented as references but they're not enough for notability to be established for what is clearly a partisan PR exercise that simply doesn't belong in this unverified and unverifiable state on Wikipedia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Israel. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Over 40 refs in the Hebrew article appear to be worthy of review and consideration. 2603:7000:2143:8500:29DB:DC1E:C88D:ABB7 (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of citations and external links, including 2 articles in English, for the non Hebrew reading people. The project has become very prominent in Israel. Their members are constantly being interviewed by main media, including print, radio and television, such as Channel 14 (Israel). They appear regularly in Kinneret Barashi's "Uplan Patuach". The project itself has made an impact on the trןal and their findings were given to the defence attorneys.Ofir michael (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just added 3 more sources in English which proves notability. One on them is from Haaretz written by Gadi Taub.Ofir michael (talk) 05:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per ample sources there is absolutely no notability concern. The only problem I have with this article is that it is still an orphan. Ofir Michael, maybe you can also integrate it into other articles? gidonb (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll just connect it to Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu.Ofir michael (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and easily meets WP:GNG. The fact that the sources are not used inline is not a reason for deletion; deletion is not cleanup. Does the article need improvement? Absolutely. Is deletion the answer? Absolutely not. - Aoidh (talk) 06:24, 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 delete. Sandstein 14:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amal Umar[edit]

Amal Umar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Very poor sources and fails to meet requirements of WP:NACTOR  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Nigeria.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Andre🚐 22:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Reading Beans (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is very common in Nigeria especially around Hausa Communities which very small percentage of activities are covered in especially online news among others.Uncle Bash007 (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually think, the decision of whether to delete or not will be much more effective if Hausa natives (who are more wary of the notability of the biography) give their feedbacks as well. I'll share with them in our User Group.Uncle Bash007 (talk) 03:19, 22 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 14:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polish rouble[edit]

Polish rouble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The term "rubel polski", "polski rubel", don't seem to exist in Polish literature (I checked on Google Books and Scholar). This article has no Polish interwiki, nor could I find this term anywhere in Polish Wikipedia. English term is very rare. This notes that such a concept was floated in 1916 but never realized. This Polish work notes that from 1841 Russian rouble started to replace the older Polish currency (Poland was at that time mostly occupied or puppetized by Russia). The best treatment we have is Russian Wikipedia which pretty much confirms that this was just a note issued by the Polish Bank for about two decades: ru:Рубль Польского банка. Given that the concept doesn't even seem to have an established name in Polish or English, notability of this is dubious (there is a slight chance Russian sources cover this in depth). Overall, I have serious concern this is a poorly referenced mistinterpretation of some other sources, such as a general reference to the fact that Congress Poland used roubles - a fact which doesn't need a dedicated article, and can be mentioned under Congress_Poland#Economy. In other words, there never was such a thing as a "Polish rouble" (the term is hardly used), instead there were regular roubles issued by Bank of Poland in Congress Poland for ~2 decades (perhaps they were visibly distingushable and are of interest to collectors, but even that isn't made apparent from the sources I found and is just my speculation). I'll ping User:Volunteer Marek who IIRC is interested in Polish economic history. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It seems like the article is admitting that Poland used the Russian rouble, supplemented by some number of Polish banknotes issued in terms of roubles. Regardless of whether such banknotes were printed, it is not a distinct currency; it's ultimately just Poland's use of Russia's currency. If the term is not used, a redirect is improper. However, if there is enough usage to warrant it, a redirect to the history section of Polish złoty may be warranted, as is discussed Poland's use of the rouble. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 17:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @El cid, el campeador Złoty would not be the right target. Currency of Poland would be, although indeed that's just a redirect there. Pl wiki has pl:Gatunki pieniądza na ziemiach polskich, which doesn't seem fully comprehensive; it only mentions in passing that in 1842 rouble was introduced in Poland, without any detail. There is also pl:Systemy monetarne w Polsce, that one seems much better. A section of interest to us is pl:Systemy_monetarne_w_Polsce#Pieniądze_Królestwa_Kongresowego_w_latach_1842–1866. Apparently pl wiki has a ton of articles about individual coins and such, not sure if they are all notable (ex. pl:½ kopiejki srebrem 1848 MW). Anyway, there is pl:Banknoty Banku Polskiego (1841–1866), pl:Monety rosyjsko-warszawskie and pl:Monety rosyjsko-polskie. Bottom line, it does seems like the currency of the Congress Poland is of interest to some, and there may be something to write, but the concept of the "Polish rouble" is incorrect. I think the article on Currency of Congress Poland would have merit, but there is hardly anything (referenced) to merge from the stub we are discussing (which, again, seems to confuse the introduction of Russian Imperial rouble in Poland with the introduction of a new, independent currency). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per excellent reasearch and reasoning of nominator. I trust Piotrus to have checked the Polish sources; the few English ones are truly not convincing. Whether other articles should include a mention of Russian rubles being used in Poland I'll leave to the editors interested; but since the article at hand contains nothing salvageable, we can just delete. --LordPeterII (talk) 23:03, 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 keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Gladney[edit]

Heather Gladney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Wikilinks appear to link to the wrong works, no independent sources at all, almost no media coverage, even the personal website is a dead link. Chagropango (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Probably. Although I would say her website being down should not be a factor. One of the links was indeed pointing to a song by the same name as the play/book, and then redirected to the album that the song was in, but that starting link was wrong, I disconnected it. She seems to have written two books that are mentioned a lot briefly in other books and all over fan pages, but I could not find anything notable. If she did in deed write the plays she is linked to, that would probably make her notable, but I've not been able to find evidence that she did. This feels harsh as events in the 1980s probably tend to be noted offline and the role of women in them is often downplayed. I've love to see the evidence and be persuaded she is notable. Until then, she seems not notable. CT55555 (talk) 03:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CT55555 (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC) I posted it to WP:ARS in the hope that someone can find the sources.[reply]
• Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3. Article has been greatly expanded from nomination. There are 6 reviews, and a notable author Charles Gramlich who says Gladney has been influential for him. -- GreenC 19:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:NAUTHOR thanks to sources added since nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources have been found that the author meets the subject specific guideline for authors. Dream Focus 01:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I voted delete at first, but since the improvements I see reviews and influence, which satisfies me she is sufficiently notable, I am influenced by the spirit of WP:AUTHOR even though I'm not sure if this follows the exact details, which I think is OK, as per WP:5P5 CT55555 (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as meets WP:NAUTHOR given the reviews. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY based on improvements. Comment: There are two "junk" citations (pardon me!) that should be removed: the Gramlich citation is a blog with no editorial oversight; and the ISFDB is user-submitted content like IMDb, which do not contribute to notability. They are both low-quality. Netherzone (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Gramlich is a reliable source (a notable author) for the given citation, doesn't matter if he self-published his opinion, so long as its attributed in the text as "According to". It may not be suitable for notability purposes, but that's different. The ISFDB should be a |via= the actual source is Midnight Zoo journal. ISFDB is useful as a convenience and verifiability link, in this case there is no reason to think the data is wrong. -- GreenC 04:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Changed to cite Midnight Zoo. -- GreenC 04:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it's pretty notable and meets the requirements for WP:NAUTHOR Kazanstyle (talk) 08:19, 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. ✗plicit 10:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schwarzsee (Quarten)[edit]

Schwarzsee (Quarten) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

i'm turning up empty-handed on reliable sources covering this significantly.

also, fails wp:nplace. although the last point states that Named natural features are often notable, there's no real information beyond statistics and coordinates that i can find in a wp:before search. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 09:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 09:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found nothing either, except for a few generic German mentions like here which state that the Schwarzsee is "a small lake", with some bog nearby. I'd vote Merge into List of raised and transitional bogs of Switzerland, but the article basically contains no information not already available there. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:49, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elyon Abel[edit]

Elyon Abel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Reading Beans (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 09:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per G11 and WP:UPE. User:Metroblue tech is an WP:SPA whose name is a good match for a firm that offers marketing, web design, and branding. Elizium23 (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Merely the pastor a local church, apparently established about a year ago. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - piling on, obviously not notable. —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above, sources don't support notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per their user history, a draft of this article has been turned down twice already at AfC [23] per their talk page, in Jan and Feb. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on notability grounds. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Globe[edit]

Mrs. Globe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V and WP:RS. Several of the "sources" are broken links - did those sources ever exist? Were they credible if they ever did exist? And of the real sources, many of them are not reliable sources (Adventuresofabeautyqueen.com? Fabafterfifty.co.uk? Wordpress blogs as Wikipedia sources, really? ) or they are just local news making minimal remarks on local winners. The sports.news.am one isn't about Mrs. Globe at all. The Business Insider one isn't even about any pageant, it's about a Russian model with 1 sentence mentioning she was a former Mrs. Globe, and same with the digitalmuscle.com one where it's about a woman with a mention that she had a history of holding a variety of Mrs. Globe titles. There are dozens of beauty pageants out there and they don't all deserve a Wikipedia article just because they claimed some fancy title like "Globe". DownAndUp (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should not have been nominated my friend went to the Mrs Globe event in China and told me the media coverage was like the paparazzi journalists and photographers everywhere the must have been a ton of articles back then. Herald Sun is the largest national media publication in Australia Australianblackbelt (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't matter what some friend says about what it was like in China. That comment alone fails WP:V and WP:RS. The question is whether there is currently enough out there about this pageant to indicate that it meets WP:N and WP:V and WP:RS. Also the Herald Sun may be a large national media publication, but 1 of the links in the sources from Herald Sun is broken and we have no way of verifying (WP:V) and the other link https://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/news/maribyrnong-woman-danielle-mcalpine-johnson-will-represent-australasia-at-mrs-globe/news-story/b92f501924b95ad6b0665122bc63de2b is written like local news about a woman competing, not going into in-depth coverage of the pageant, not in any way conferring notability. DownAndUp (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: 25+ year old international pageant, seems to be readily notable, i can see a slew of articles about winners of feeders into the pageant. There's no reason to assume broken links didn't ever exist, wikipedia articles usually last longer than many news links.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If we can't verify sources, that means they don't count. For an article to exist on Wikipedia, it must pass WP:N and WP:V and WP:RS. As for "readily notable", there are dozens if not hundreds of pageants out there that have existed for a couple decades and people sometimes write local articles about local winners, but that doesn't mean the pageant is notable enough to be in an Encyclopedia. DownAndUp (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • There are tons of sources on Mrs Globe did you even bother to look before trying to delete http://en.people.cn/n/2015/1125/c98649-8981624.html Australianblackbelt (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 70 countries participated in the competition how much bigger can a pageant be Australianblackbelt (talk) 07:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Some photos of approximately 40 Asian women in the Chinese "People's Daily", with no women from African or European countries, does not indicate that the Mrs. Globe pageant in China was significant enough for widespread coverage nor that it has women from 70 countries participating (40 Asian women is not the level of diversity we would expect from 70 countries participating). Those photos look like it might be for Mrs. China Globe, perhaps - I cannot read the Chinese markings on the sash. Where is the evidence of 70 countries participating? That looks like an unverifiable claim for false marketing, a helpful ad for Mrs. Globe but possibly false advertising. It fails WP:V if we cannot find content that demonstrate a true diversity of contestants from 70 countries. It does not confer notability to make an unverified claim that 70 countries participated - even if that's true, we need WP:RS and WP:V. DownAndUp (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Even look at the comments: "Miss average contest." "They don't look like winners on the global stage. Not enough glam factor." That's 2 of exactly 4 comments, in the strongest source you've provided so far. Not very convincing. DownAndUp (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• your argument just lost all credibility the winner was not Asian and even Uruguay attended the fact that you personally don’t believe it is pointless the evidence is there all those 70 countries have at least one article on the pageant Australianblackbelt (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • https://www.namibian.com.na/168990/archive-read/Thlabanello-to-compete-in-Mrs-Globe-in-China Australianblackbelt (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not say anything about who the winner was or whether Uruguay attended, there is nothing about what I said that makes my argument lose all credibility. What I said was that in the link you attached http://en.people.cn/n/2015/1125/c98649-8981624.html there was nothing that made it look like a notable pageant. There are only photos of 40 Asian women in that, and I can't read the sashes so it could have been Mrs. China Globe and not Mrs. Globe. Also that article you just linked about Thlabanello is more about her and less about the Mrs. Globe pageant. Literally the only thing that article says about Mrs. Globe is "Mrs Globe in Shenzen, China in December". There's no information about the pageant whatsoever. The woman may or may not be notable herself, but that article is about the woman and not the pageant. I continue to feel strongly that this Wikipedia page deserves deletion. DownAndUp (talk) 21:09, 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!} 06:53, 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!} 07:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep more than enough sources showing it exists, many from Canada about the participants [24], [25] Plenty from other countries [26]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely weak, based on those sources. I noted that the rationale used for the recent deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant) applies in this case as well; the last 4 comments that state "Delete" are relevant here too. DownAndUp (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:08, 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. Sandstein 14:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs Globe Australia[edit]

Mrs Globe Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:N and WP:V and WP:RS. Most of the "sources" are broken links - did those sources ever exist? Of the real sources, most of them aren't even about Mrs. Australia Globe but just about Mrs. Globe in general. At best, some of the sources can be merged into the Mrs. Globe article but I don't really see that being necessary either. The titleholders tables are also a mess with many missing years and no info on placements or special awards - clearly not notable enough for any sources to speak about those things. Seems like an easy delete to me. DownAndUp (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extensive article in the National newspaper the latin Australian times by award winning journalist Carmen Novoa Australianblackbelt (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Just translated that picture using https://translate.yandex.com/ocr and the content reads like an ad. It looks like PR, mostly regurgitating marketing content from the Mrs. Globe website. Whether or not Carmen Novoa is an award-winning journalist means nothing, because this article is about the pageant not about the author of 1 article. Also, 1 single article is not enough to make this Wikipedia page worthwhile when most of the other sources are broken or are not meeting necessary criteria to demonstrate notability and thorough coverage. This is still failing WP:N and WP:V and WP:RS. DownAndUp (talk) 16:59, 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!} 06:51, 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!} 07:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I noted that the rationale used for the recent deletion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrs. International (pageant) applies in this case as well; the last 4 comments that state "Delete" are relevant here too. DownAndUp (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Since this is essentially an event run by a commercial organization, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP. [References] focus either on the contestants (past and present) and their "causes" or opinions or is based on PR/Announcements. Most of the references have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND as the content is provided by affiliated sources and the rest fail WP:CORPDEPTH as trivial content." "Sources provided mainly only reference the organization as existing and mostly talk about whatever contestant they're highlighting. Confirmation that it exists is not notability." DownAndUp (talk) 04:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as promotional Andre🚐 05:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]