< January 28 January 30 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Niels Heinsøe[edit]

Niels Heinsøe (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:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bride of the World[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bride of the World (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. Tagged for notability since 2014. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments based on gng do not address NCORP concerns and an article on a brand should be sourced to coverage of rhe brand not individual products to avoid OR. Spartaz Humbug! 22:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lowepro[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lowepro (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)

Re-nominating this article 9 years on. Many of the cited sources are merely reviews of products as is typical for manufacturers of goods sold at retail; there are passing mentions of the company here and there, but it lacks the substantial independent third-party coverage in reliable sources that are looked for in WP:NCORP. The page remains heavily weighted toward promotional content and relies for its non-promotional statements mostly on other than reliable sources and press releases. A search for anything that might make it notable, in terms of its impact as a company or any important events it might have played a role in, comes up empty. It's run of the WP:MILL. The previous discussion resulted in no consensus. I suggest it be deleted. FalconK (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I removed unsourced content or content sourced to self-published sources from the "Products" section. The section now has:

    The Slingshot range is aimed at professional news and sports photographers,[6] providing easy access to cameras for rapid shooting; CNet found the SlingShot 300 AW Camera Bag offered good protection and easy access.[7] The FastPack is a rucksack-style range, which CNet found less refined.[8]

    and is sourced to Amateur Photographer and CNET. This is neutral and balanced and is not advertising. Cunard (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Cunard's grasp of NCORP is worringly deficient despite several editors attempting to assist him in grasping some of the peculiarities of NCORP guidelines. For here, Cunard is ignoring the fact that the topic is a company while the references he's relying on talk about the product. Fails CORPDEPTH. The last reference from the North Bay Business Journal from 2016 is an advertorial for bags to carry drones. Fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 19:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have addressed the company versus brand topic below. I do not agree that the profile from the North Bay Business Journal is an advertorial, which is defined as "an advertisement in the form of editorial content". It is a profile of the company from a reputable publication. It has a positive tone and includes quotes from people affiliated with the company, but there is no evidence that the profile in the North Bay Business Journal is an advertisement. Cunard (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a "Journalism advertorial" which is defined as The organization wants to attract media attention to a subject or themselves. There isn't one sentence in that entire article that is "clearly attributable" to a source unrelated to the company. But that said ... I agree with your point below about it being a "brand" and not a "company" ... so I'm not sure if NCORP applies anymore although I don't know for sure. HighKing++ 13:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is about the brand (the company's goods), not the company. From Lowepro: "Lowepro is a brand of carrying bags". If the article was about the company, it would say "Lowepro is a company that sells carrying bags". There is significant coverage about the brand through the numerous product reviews and through the sources I provided.

    From brand, "A brand is a name ... that identifies one seller's good or service as distinct from those of other sellers."

    I consider a brand to be about a set of a company's products (so product reviews can be used to establish notability), not about the company itself. If you think otherwise, is there any alternative to deletion per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion to reframing the article to be about the products so that this can be retained? It does not make sense to delete an article about a brand that has received numerous product reviews just because the company itself did not receive significant coverage. The brand is notable, not the company.

    Cunard (talk) 07:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response There's an "Infobox Company" and a "History of the company" section so it looked to me like an article on a company which originally was part of Lowe Alpine (which was acquired by Rab (company) which was in turn acquired by "Equip Outdoor Technologies"). But I understand your point - despite the structure of the article, there doesn't appear to be a *company* of this name (correct me if I'm wrong), only a brand name. At some point the "Lowepro" brand was acquired by another company and is now owned by Vitec Group (which owns a ton of brands and has no wikipedia article). I'm not sure which guideline applies for a brand .... perhaps NCORP should still apply? HighKing++ 13:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with your analysis that there is no company by the name of Lowepro, only a brand name. I consider a brand to be a product or perhaps more accurately, a set of products. I think the relevant guideline to apply for a brand is still NCORP, specifically Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Products and services. The brand Lowepro has received significant coverage through numerous product reviews so it passes NCORP. Cunard (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It still isn't straight forward though. The problem with that approach though is that there aren't any reviews on the "brand" per se, only individual reviews for individual products. So we run the risk of WP:OR in trying to create a "brand" topic. HighKing++ 16:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Satanakozel[edit]

Satanakozel (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 is understandably a russian group and there may not be many references in english; its debut album has already been deleted. Sikonmina (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Macedonian Americans#Media. ✗plicit 02:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Makedonski Glas[edit]

Makedonski Glas (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 evidence that this former newspaper meets Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) GoingBatty (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 01:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Wikipedia:ATD. Djflem (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 00:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Wei (businessman)[edit]

Huang Wei (businessman) (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 couldn't find sources to show that they pass WP:GNG as the current source does not show sufficient notability by itself. A WP:BEFORE search was hampered by results for the live-streamer Viya (influencer) who has the same birth name so it's quite possible that I've missed non-English sources. Suonii180 (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Bechdel[edit]

John Bechdel (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)

Just a random band member. Not enough to demonstrate notability FMSky (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bechdel has a 30 plus year career in notable bands and has worked with notable artists worldwide. He is also credited on albums and singles that have charted and were nominated for Grammy awards. John Bechdel has approved and authorized his bio and discography personally on his wiki page. He is very much alive and a touring/working musician. I am editing on his behalf. Rage4order (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted a WP:COI notice on your talk page. Please read it carefully and follow the instructions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beeni[edit]

Beeni (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 reliable, secondary sources covering this subject in detail have been provided, and a search for scholarly sources on the subject turns up nothing. The article, as it stands, falls into the category of WP:JUNK, neither defining the sport it professes to be about, how it might be different from other forms of wrestling, where the name comes from, or anything of that ilk. The only sources are highly specific news reports of a supposed world champion-defining match in the North of England that equally do not describe the sport in any great detail. This is not great from a WP:NOTNEWS perspective, and, arguably, the actual discussion of the support in these sources is also quite trivial, as they are focused on the matches and the wrestlers more than the sport itself. Only the Manchester Evening New link appears to have more than a few lines on the sport itself. Upon writing this, there was also no inline citation whatsoever supporting any of the claims. Even if this a fringe sport, one would would expect some slightly better sourcing that this to support it; for the moment, it is not convincingly notable from the perspective of Wikipedia's standards. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This sport isn't an international one as described in the article. Rather, it is a traditional form of arm wrestling played by some Kashmiri tribes, and the Pakistani diaspora in England. The game is mentioned in the following journal: https://www.academia.edu/36775183/THE_INTERNATIONAL_JOURNAL_OF_HUMANITIES_and_SOCIAL_STUDIES_Socio_Economic_and_Educational_Status_of_Tribal_Gujjar_and_Bakarwal_of_Jammu_and_Kashmir_An_Overview The article can be improved by adding relevant citations and content. Toofllab (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I'm closing this early per WP:SNOW as there's really no chance that this could survive deletion. It's probably the only article created by an editor (who I just blocked as WP:NOTHERE) who also created some hoax pages. At best his edits have been to promote himself. At worst they were pages about non-notable media with hoax claims about being released through major production companies. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Lyosacks Movie[edit]

The Lyosacks Movie (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 evidence whatever of notability. No sources have been provided apart from a link (now removed) to the "official website", which is a wiki page on Fandom, and an IMDb entry, which gives no information at all apart from a brief plot summary (no credits, no mention of what studio made the film, etc etc). My searches for sources failed to turn up any coverage in any reliable source. JBW (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 19:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oneindia[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Oneindia (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)

Appears to fail WP:NCORP - of the four sources, only The Times Of India appears to be worth for establishing notability, and one < three. casualdejekyll 22:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Withdrawn- Djm-leighpark has convinced me that Oneindia is a keep casualdejekyll 19:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

REFER – Responsible Energy for European Regions[edit]

REFER – Responsible Energy for European Regions (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 found no significant coverage. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 02:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hamdard (NGO) Ramban[edit]

Hamdard (NGO) Ramban (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)

There are several issues with this article. 1. No significant coverage about the organization itself in any of the sources, most are passing mentions. 2. Puffery and attempts at promotion with too many images. Statements across the article are repetitive in nature. 3. No COI declared by article creator, have also removed the tag added to article. Removed PROD without fixing the issues. Previous attempts at creating the article has been speedy deleted per user/talk page. MT TrainTalk 14:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Asare[edit]

Edward Asare (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)

BLP of a Ghanaian blogger and influencer, previously speedy deleted under A7 and G11, recreated now but still lacking in anything suggesting notability. Sourced to promotional pieces of churnalism. Mccapra (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source 2 has a disclaimer saying it carries syndicated content and user-generated content, which this obviously is.
Source 3 is about an awards win, also based on a press release, full of ludicrous bloated language.
Source 4 won’t load for me but from the headlines it’s the announcement of the 50 top bloggers in Ghana. What this contributes to notability I can’t say.
Source 5 is an interview with the subject.
Source 6 also looks like it’s based on his own pr.
Source 7 is an interview with the subject.
Source 8 is a copy of the same press release in source 3.
Source 9 appears to be sourced to the same press release as source 4.
There isn’t a single piece of reliable in depth coverage by a third party here. It’s all promotional or self-promotional nonsense, churnalism of the worst sort. Mccapra (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I feel that, despite all the keep !votes, the issue with the credibility of sources still remains. I'd like to see some more critical input here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 18:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 02:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prarthi Dholakia[edit]

Prarthi Dholakia (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)

Actress has no significant roles in any notable films. Fails WP:NACTOR as well as WP:GNG. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will oppose the nomination of deletion as the page is of person who works in gujarati tv serial space and in acting space and is quite famous for those works. Currently she is working as actress in ShemarooMe Originals - Goti Soda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chintak23 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IndaneLove (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PEI Journal[edit]

PEI Journal (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)

Completely unreferenced article, and the journal appears promotional and non-notable. A WP:BEFORE search found no independent sources. Wgullyn (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Storm FM[edit]

Rock Storm FM (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)

Unreferenced since 2006, no sigcov found in my WP:BEFORE, appears to be potential COI/Promo article given the history of the article creator. FOARP (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yousuf Babu[edit]

Yousuf Babu (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 the revised WP:NCRIC notability guidelines. All his matches were in the ICC Trophy, few sources and coverage is WP:NOTSTATS or routine. StickyWicket (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change to neutral, per the new source showing SIGCOV. The last new source given is a blog, so does not count, and the two others are not significant. But the TBS News source works. We just need a second piece of SIGCOV now. JoelleJay (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Winterville (band)#Discography. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 23:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shotgun Smile[edit]

Shotgun Smile (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 independent sources, a WP:BEFORE check shows there are no articles about this single. Currently the only source is the band's old website, which is now a dead link. Wgullyn (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to 2022 in Canadian soccer. ✗plicit 00:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 in Canadian football[edit]

2022 in Canadian football (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 already exists in a more fleshed-out form at 2022 in Canadian soccer. Also proper term per LANGVAR for Canada is soccer. RedPatch (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much like Canadian qualifying for 2022! :) Nfitz (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asimov's Chronology of the World[edit]

Asimov's Chronology of the World (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)

Non-notable Asimov production; like the shorter version, there is no evidence or assertion of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 14:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Asimov's Chronology of the World per discussion in both this AfD and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asimov's Chronology of the World. RL0919 (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The March of the Millennia[edit]

The March of the Millennia (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)

Non-notable, indeed downright obscure short version of a non-notable Asimov book. Not all of his output is notable. Orange Mike | Talk 14:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Malamatinas[edit]

Dennis Malamatinas (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)

Non-notable businessman. I'm unable to find coverage which demonstrates that WP:BIO is met. SmartSE (talk) 11:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said likelihood, not certainty. But certainly there will eventually be , as the nyt will give hmi an editorial obit when he dies,, if WP survives long enough to use it.``

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valsa Nair Singh[edit]

Valsa Nair Singh (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)

Wikipedia should never be used as a resume hosting site a.k.a. WP:NOTCV. This is a promotional page of the entity WP:PROMO with over citations WP:CITEKILL. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD; ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sun Hung Kai Properties#Construction and project management. ✗plicit 12:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanfield (Management) Limited[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sanfield (Management) Limited (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)

Recreation of the deleted article. With citation either primary source or just routine mention of the company. So, seems quite clear cut fails WP:NCORP. Any content for this subsidiary can always be placed in Sun Hung Kai Properties as the company is the in-house project manager of SHK . The "notable" project of Sanfield are in fact SHK project. Matthew hk (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW, and also speedy delete per WP:G5. If someone who is not a banned editor would like to create an article on this person, they will need to start from scratch and demonstrate with reliable sources that this person meets the general notability guideline. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Fleming (Entrepreneur)[edit]

Olga Fleming (Entrepreneur) (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 is some sort of COI/Paid article (throwaway account with just enough edits to launch article into mainspace) with the flimsiest references, only one of which seems to be about the subject). It's riddled with weasel PR; subject is, in essence, a finsec Mother Theresa. But mainly, there's no evidence that the subject is notable, and it's thoroughly objectionable to see wikipedia co-opted for this sort of PR bullshit. Tagishsimon (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A published writer, seems sufficiently referenced. Seasider53 (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Seasider53: The books looks to be self-published. Inside it is no mention of any publishing company....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notability for a writer is not established by using Google Books to source the fact that the books exist, it's established by using media coverage about the books to source the fact that they've been externally validated as significant (award wins, critical attention from professional literary critics, etc.) Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Replace with Jon Hubbard (American politician). Sandstein 08:39, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hubbard[edit]

Jon Hubbard (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 created this DAB in 2012 (the first content page I created, I think!) after moving the previous subject of the page to Jon Hubbard (British politician). Initially it just DAB'd him and Jon Hubbard (American politician); Boleyn subsequently added Jonathan Hatch Hubbard, and a few months later she successfully PRODded the British politician's article, leaving the page with just these two.

In other words, this is a series of reasonable edits that has left us with a DAB that I don't think I would have created for just these two. While Jon is sometimes a nickname for Jonathan, I don't see any evidence that Jonathan Hatch Hubbard went by it. So the primary topic for "Jon Hubbard" would seem to be the American politician. I think the better approach here would be to delete the dab, move the American politician's article to this title, and hatnote his article to Jonathan Hatch Hubbard and John Hubbard (disambiguation). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 07:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC) c/e broken links 12:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Escuadrón[edit]

Escuadrón (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:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; I found no RS reviews in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tonny Fisker[edit]

Tonny Fisker (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:NBADMINTON and WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[8] — has lengthy quotes from Fisker, none of which helped me in determining of he is notable.
[9] — passing mention, I guess.
[10] — I can't access it
[11] — Page number not mentioned. Upon searching, it appears to be 17. Passing mention that he won bronze medal. Also, a primary source.
[12] — this appears to be a source giving significant coverage, but it in Sermitsiaq (newspaper), a regional newspaper. I doubt if it contributed towards GNG.
[13] — passing mention
[14] — foreign source, so I cannot access the content to accurately judge the content. Though, it being from Kalaallit Nunaata Radioa makes it bit reliable, I think.
[15] — I see not mention of the subject at all.
[16] — passing mention.
Apart from these, I wan't able to find many other sources. So, I think that article should be deleted. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bellinda Myrick[edit]

Bellinda Myrick (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)

Non notable singer/actress who fails the notability guidelines. I found only a few sources that mention her including 1, 2 and 3 Sahaib3005 (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to lack of significant coverage to support notability. The prospect of a redirect did not receive support to create an alternative consensus. RL0919 (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Moralis[edit]

John Moralis (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 subject lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable and independent sources and thus fails WP:GNG. The subject also fails WP:NOLYMPICS in that he did not win a medal. In this case, Moralis not only didn't medal -- he actually did not even finish the event. See Athletics at the 1932 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 kilometres walk. Cbl62 (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Based on his being named John and representing the club "Ellinoamerikanos AS, New York", he had probably migrated to the US at the time. As a result, the coverage in Greek could be limited. Geschichte (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GPL93: Do you think those qualify as SIGCOV? Cbl62 (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: I think probably the NYT is, the other I'm not as sure about given its a quick writeup of him visiting Frederick, MD. I should also note that "John" appears to have been his Americanized name and his actual name was Ioannis so there might be more referencing under that name. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. SIGCOV in the NYT would be impressive. Was it just about the results of a local race in NYC or more broadly about him? Cbl62 (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per sources presented later in the discussion, and the discussion about sources that has ensued.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. All of the Keep voters have been blocked so I'm discounting their votes but giving this a soft delete in case sources appear that allow an improved version of this article to be created. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mridul Kachawa[edit]

Mridul Kachawa (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)

Looks like promotional page. All the reference are in Hindi and not mentioned any reason of popularity other than a civil servant. ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional states of the United States[edit]

List of fictional states of the United States (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 list has few sources and seems to fail WP:LISTN. A large number of the entries are themselves non-notable as well. I usually tolerate plot-significant states in notable works, and sometimes also fictional things from non-works, but like many low-quality lists of fictional elements by type, many entries are mere passing mentions; from works that do not have articles, including books by redlinked authors; or places not even confirmed as US states. A good example of the latter is "North Montana" as a future version of Canada in Meet the Robinsons, which is mentioned as a one-off gag and is never claimed to be part of the US — all that is said is that it "hasn't been called Canada for years."

Aside from notability concerns, the article has serious problems with its scope. We have everything from purely fictional states (the ostensible topic, and same as Category:Fictional states of the United States); fictionalized versions of real or proposed states, such as works where the proposed State of Deseret became reality; various alternate history or otherwise fictionalized versions of the US, such as scenarios where the American Revolution failed; and breakaway states formed from the US, such as fictionalized versions of the Confederate States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April Deniz[edit]

April Deniz (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 subject appears to have received some coverage as a child prodigy and that was spun into an article as an artist. The editor who created the article made one edit - creation of this article. Proded and then deproded because "exhibition at museum passes WP:NARTIST", however there aren't any citations for exhibitions. I cannot find any reliable sources about the artist or her work. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep arguments around an SNG pass are less compelling when the evidence is they fail GNG and this is a BLP. Spartaz Humbug! 22:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Dulcie[edit]

Greg Dulcie (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)

Exclusively-voice actors don't get much publicity as a rule. Dulcie is not the exception, so WP:GNG is not satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canadianerk, we can talk about popularity of voice actors over time at WT:ANIME or WP:ANIME/BIO talk page. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF someone suggested that NACTOR point #1 should not apply to voice actors anymore, I replied. I don't have any confidence in starting one myself. If you want to have it, I'd be willing to participate- otherwise, I've got other articles which need my attention. Canadianerk (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion at WP:ANIME/BIO talk page for those interested. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply to BriefEdits - I speak from experience that it can take hours of work to get one VA article the sources it needs in filmography - and there's so many of them, just within this subcategory of biography articles, that need attention. I don't want to get into habit of jumping into AfDs, and playing wack-a-mole cleanup - but for this one, it shouldn't take too long so I'll give it a shot. Hope it helps - please check back on the article sometime tomorrow (UTC) and let me know if the improvements help. Canadianerk (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Canadianerk, I wouldn't spend the hours confirming credits in cast lists when the subject's general notability is in question. You need to find newspaper sources that discuss the subject in significant coverage. A passing mention, even a one-line review of the subject's portrayal will not help the case. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 06:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF I appreciate an attempt to save time for other editors, but I've already finished my "basic" (how I define it in my own mind, I s'pose) sourcing update to the article. I also acknowledge the attempt to provide your reasoning as to why I shouldn't bother, however, I'll be clear: Your interpretation of policy in this area is one I disagree with in part, and as you might recall - one I challenged multiple times in the second Marissa Lenti AfD. From what I recall, one I didn't get much of an explanation for in response - I was a *very* new editor, so it might not've communicated as clearly as I intended... Regardless, I've seen the original Lenti AfD, I agree with the decision then but not a portion of the reasoning. I know your general position in this area and that you've held them for years, and likely agree this is leaning towards delete on lack of notable roles (I haven't analyzed each role in terms of notability - and don't plan to - so I'm not voting) - I'm not here to debate your opinion, I'm here because the main concern of Oppose votes at time of the above comment, was the quality/sourcing of these roles. My goal here wasn't to just jump in and save the article solo, but enable fellow editors to debate its merits on the basis of NACTOR without being hindered by the lack of reliable sourcing. I don't intend to repeat this kind of time drain in the future regardless of the outcome, and focus on my plans to improve the filmography of dozens of EN VA articles this year. All the best, and enjoy your Monday- Canadianerk (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Canadianerk, if there's a chance the actor may be notable in the future, as with WP:TOOSOON, then I would recommend draftify. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Canadianerk, you can find some examples of voice actor coverage in newspaper articles at WP:ANIME/BIO. Those writeups help a lot more towards WP:GNG AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware - the only reviews I found were on ANN: one line for Tokyo Ghoul re, one line for golden kamuy and 3 sentences for MHA: Heroes Rising.
They're not what you're looking for, but I didn't personally find any others, on and off ANN. Canadianerk (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Engli[edit]

Engli (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 context and no verifications to reliable sources. Delete per WP:NOTDICT. AKK700 00:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Made by a prolific mass-creator who literally made tens of thousands of shit-stubs like this. I've taken the liberty of AWB redirecting a number of them, but my goodness what a mess he made before being blocked. This is more of a pond than a lake, with no sign of notability or distinguishing characteristics just like the hundreds of other ponds in its vicinity. Reywas92Talk 04:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. To be redirected to List of lakes in Estonia--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search on the name will surface the page with the list of lakes, so I'm not sure that a redirect is needed, but don't object to that. Looking at List of lakes in Estonia it seems that there was hope to create pages for all of the lakes with information about them -- many of the pages, like Engli, are just stubs with the name of the lake. They don't provide any more information that the list itself. This one could be a major clean-up project, but meanwhile, since it has come to AFD, Engli should be removed. Lamona (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Klavs F. Jensen#Research. ✗plicit 03:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CellSqueeze[edit]

CellSqueeze (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)

It looks like this article was started around the time this technology was described (~2013). In the 8 years since, I'm not sure this has caught the attention to meet WP:GNG. If I search Pubmed I only get 1 result and it's by the same group that described the method. Is it WP:TOOSOON for an article on CellSqueeze? Alternatively, we could consider moving the material to a new page on the company they formed, SQZ Biotech, but I'm having a hard time finding sources that aren't regular biotech PR stuff. I don't typically work on WP:NCORP-related articles, perhaps someone else will have a better time finding something? Ajpolino (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Čerčan[edit]

Čerčan (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)

Unnecessary disambiguation page for Čerčan. There are two items on the list: the first is to a misspelling (Črečan) and the second is to a small village named Přestavlky u Čerčan which is not an exact match. "Čerčan" itself is thus rather implausible as a search term. In fact, people are more plausibly interested in finding the larger municipality Čerčany. Pichpich (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do we know for a fact that the original redirect is a misspelling? It could be a legitimate variation, if undocumented here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This discussion establishes that this person is frequently quoted in the media, but that this is not enough for a biographical article about her. Sandstein 08:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine P. Saxton[edit]

Catherine P. Saxton (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)

Non-notable publicist. Sources present do not establish notability. WP:BEFORE turns up nothing else. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have dug deeping into the *Gatecrashers* book. She is covered on the following pages in the book: 144, 166, 171-174,226, 236-237. More details are in the page DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A few more citations - most notable is her work on the Vietnam Veterans parade and 2004 events prior to the elections. Aside from the interview in the Irish Connections, I cannot find any single article solely focused on her. DaffodilOcean (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lamona - are you able to access the Gatecrashers book as that is multiple pages on her? DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and basically she is mentioned in one or two sentences on 5 pages. It's stuff like "I met CS at the bar...". Then there are about two pages where he describes her life (I'm looking at the ebook so "pages" is a guess - it's about 2 columns on my tablet and could probably fit on a single printed page.) But she's a very minor character and I don't see enough here to to reach notability. Also, this is a pretty light-weight "tell-all" gossip book, so even if some "facts" are revealed I'm not sure how seriously we can take them. Look, I definitely think she is an interesting person and her life story would be fascinating, but so far I don't see it. Lamona (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More