< July 30	August 01 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Tran[edit]

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

Rich Tran

Biography of a living person that does not satisfy general notability or political notability. The one reference states that he was elected mayor of the town. It is a reliable source, but is not an independent source, and does not provide significant coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added an independent source regarding the elected individual. GrayEquinox951 (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a couple of articles covering a brief run for state assembly ([1], [2]), but he did not make it onto the ballot for the actual election. All other coverage appears local in nature. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Smalltown mayors are not automatically notable just because they exist as mayors, and one independent source that simply verifies the fact of their election as mayor is not sufficient coverage to get them in the door. Making a mayor notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia is not accomplished just by minimally verifying that they exist — it's accomplished by writing a substantive article sourced to a lot of reliable source coverage that deep dives into their political significance: specific things they did in the mayor's chair, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what this article is. Bearcat (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., Presidentman, and Bearcat. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL, as per Bearcat's reasoning. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tri Ta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Tri Ta

Biography of a living person that does not satisfy general notability or political notability. The one reference states that he was elected mayor of the town. It is a reliable source, but is not an independent source, and does not provide significant coverage. Not much has changed since the previous article was deleted in 2007. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added two more independent sources. GrayEquinox951 (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the original article was deleted, Ta was elected mayor. I found this article from VOA about his election and coverage about a failed recall election ([3], [4]) and current state assembly run ([5], [6]). - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I added several sources and expanded the biography. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - article quality improved considerably, showing significant coverage from independent sources for the mayor of a mid-sized American city, notable for being the first Vietnamese-American elected mayor in the United States. DHN (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Presidentman and DHN. Passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to improvements since nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schneider's sine approximation formula[edit]

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

Bad promotion to article space by User:Beland, who seems more intent on clearing out draft space than in checking the notability and suitability for mainspace of the promotion targets. The article has no sources and a search for various permutations of the title wording in Google Scholar found nothing usable as a source. If this were created in any other way I would draftify but that seems an inappropriate way to contest a promotion from draftspace. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't find coverage in reliable sources. For anyone else trying to search, I think if sources exist they are more likely to mention smoothstep and probably wouldn't mention Schneider (whoever that is). Adumbrativus (talk) 04:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Among the "various permutations" in WP:BEFORE I did try a search for only the words "smoothstep" and "Schneider". No luck. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - yup, I'm cleaning up draft space so 1.) we don't lose good content after 6 months and 2.) so we don't have to keep dealing with the overhead of bad content being auto-deleted and then undeleted every 6 months just because it's on Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages, which survived MFD. I figured that once this started getting attention, either people would find sources for it or it would get nominated for deletion. I leave it up to the math experts to determine which is better for this article. If any math experts want to go through the list and more expertly decide on the disposition of the various inactive articles in limbo, that would save me the trouble. -- Beland (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a bad reason for promoting dubious content to mainspace. Just wait the six months and let it get deleted. You'll get your answer to whether it was important that way rather than by what you are doing, taking ownership of a mess and then forcing the rest of us to go through all this work to clean up a mess that is yours. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like I said, at the end of the six months, these articles just get undeleted regardless of merit, because they are on the list. At some point people need to actually consider the merit of the topic. I'm glad that you are applying your expertise to help discern the best disposition for this content, but if you don't have the time or desire to do so, no one is forcing you to participate; you can just leave it up to other editors. I don't just mindlessly promote all the drafts on the list to article space; some of them I nominate for deletion, and then editors complain about doing that. If people complain that articles of uncertain value can't be auto-deleted after 6 months, can't be nominated for manual deletion, can't be promoted to article space, and no one ever looks at the drafts to discern their merit, then it seems someone is going to be unhappy no matter what happens to this content. -- Beland (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Stale drafts that have been deleted shouldn't be undeleted just because they had been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages. Instead, the links should be removed from that list. XOR'easter (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I support doing that, but the page says "Do not remove red links unless the drafts are no longer needed (undeletion requests of them might be needed.)" This was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages#Keep_redlinks?, if you want to re-open that question. -- Beland (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because that is a practice which makes literally no sense to me, I have done so. XOR'easter (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The key issue is that the article has zero refs. My quick Google search didn’t yield any refs that we can use. (Of course, there can be offline refs, though) Unless there is a way to address the ref issue, the article needs to be gone. —- Taku (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm getting a thing made up one day vibe from this; searching for reasonable permutations of the topic name turned up nothing. XOR'easter (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research (to be fair using smoothstep to approximate sine or cosine is also discussed here and alluded to here, so maybe this could get a mention in the smoothstep article). The oldest version of the article literally states It was created by Taylor Schneider (February 18th, 2022), a twenty-first-century American Programmer. (Checking the page creator's ArtStation account on his userpage confirms that Taylor Schneider is indeed the creator.) Interesting idea though. Duckmather (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best, this is utterly not notable; at worst, this is WP:OR. The rationale provided above for moving a draft that has zero references to the Article namespace is absolutely bizarre to me. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:22, 1 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) 23:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mxolisi Nhleko[edit]

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

Notability has not been established. Amigao (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Amigao (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ANYBIO, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the citations are independent of the subject. An easy call. Ira Leviton (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also failed to uncover significant independent coverage. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find any notable sources reporting about him. fails WP:ANYBIO. Poppified ^talk 15:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched via several methods, could not find anything that is independent and reliable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was only able to find social media accounts when searching his name on Google. One source on the page is a post he made on The Kosi Bay News which the article states he created and the other two sources are from a site the article says he co-founded with a friend. Neither of these would be a source independent of the subject. Copyrightpower1337 (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 23:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Institute of Plantation Management[edit]

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

Both sources lack in-depth coverage and amount to little more than passing mentions. Could not find any other sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT. Article was created in bad faith * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, India, and Karnataka. Shellwood (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NORG, due to insufficient in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Verma (TV Actor)[edit]

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

The page had already been deleted and blocked for recreation! Still the page has been recreated! Looks like a PR tactic or sock puppet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imsaneikigai (talk • contribs) 11:27, July 24, 2022 (UTC)

Comment Discussion page was created without the ((afd2)) template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now. @Imsaneikigai: For future AfD nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. As for my own view, I'll note that Ankur Verma was salted after several previous incarnations of the article were speedily deleted, creators of those versions had been blocked for promotion and/or sockpuppetry, and that the creator of this version was blocked for socking subsequent to its creation (so no G5 speedy). Looking at the article at hand, a first pass through the given references seems to show a lot of unreliable sources, passing mentions, and general PR fluff, though I have no way of knowing how it compares to the deleted versions. Draft:Ankur Verma also exists from the same sockfarm. --Finngall ^talk 23:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry for the late response! I will surely follow all the instructions in future. Since the page in the draft space Draft:Ankur Verma and Ankur Verma (TV Actor) appear to be more or less same, so shall we move the latter to draft space or shall we nominate it for speedy deletion under the section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. -—Imsaneikigai

@Imsaneikigai: No harm in leaving both versions in place for now, and the closing admin can make a recommendation with regard to the draft once the discussion on the mainspace version has concluded. --Finngall ^talk 21:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Haryana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination. Ankur Verma is protected from recreation, So Draft:Ankur Verma and TV actor is created. See the move log seems desperate attempt to make the article live. C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 03:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ankur Verma is salted, and the article writer has been blocked as a sock. I would consider nominating this for CSD G5, except there are some edits by additional editors. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just a comment for this relisting. The sockmaster here was not blocked when this article was created by the sockpuppet so CSD G5 is not possible since there was no ban evasion. Ankur Verma was previously deleted by speedy deletion, not through a previous AFD so please treat this discussion as a valid AFD and list reasons why this article should be deleted that have nothing to do with sockpuppetry. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nominator Ravensfire (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Haven[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR; he’s only had one significant role in Breaking Dawn (2004 film). Needs two or more significant roles in order to be eligible. Being the son of Jon Voight and the brother of Angelina Jolie doesn’t make him notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. The Film Creator (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Shellwood (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete this article? Seems informative — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100C:B023:DC07:3D30:46B1:F177:AC75 (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Informative articles aren't always kept. In this case, James Haven may not be notable and if he is not, then he shouldn't be written about on wikipedia... --Ferien (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure what the definition of "significant" is, and don't think you should be the one to determine that, but given his credits for other projects, I think he is notable enough to have an article. Should there be more references? Yes, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted, it means more references should be added, which I'm sure can be found. Calibrador (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more support for deletion to consider deleting an article that has survived here for 19 years. I know longevity isn't an important factor to consider in a deletion discussion but right now, we only have the nominator's opinion that this article warrants deletion so I'm relisting the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with your sentiments regarding James Haven's page. I find this significant..."Since 2006, James has been the executive board director of Artivist, a Los Angeles festival that highlights movies, addressing human rights, animal rights, and environmental issues." Also, how many people achieve this distinction while still in school? "While at the University of Southern California, he received a George Lucas Award for a student film he directed starring his sister." This is also a significant achievement..."In 2005, Haven was the executive producer of the documentary Trudell, which chronicles the life and work of Santee Sioux musician and activist John Trudell. Trudell was an official selection at the Sundance Film Festival and the Tribeca Film Festival; it won the Special Jury Prize for Best Documentary at the Seattle International Film Festival." I think he's achieved a fair amount along with his acting/directing achievements. I feel his page should remain and be edited as his experience evolves. PatrishyO (talk) 02:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. M.G.R. Educational and Research Institute[edit]

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

Non-notable university per WP:NCORP, has been poorly- or un-sourced pretty much since its creation. "It exists" is about as much as anyone can say about it. Primefac (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and India. Primefac (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom (as the cool kids say :) ) MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Everybody is free to create an appropriate redirect, but none have been proposed here. Sandstein 08:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Donahue[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Won a season of Big Brother in 2002 and nothing since then; is winning one reality series two decades ago sufficient to establish notability? Bgsu98 (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable reality show participant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep More than enough sourcing to confirm she won the show. I'd say she's notable for that. If not, could redirect to the article about that particular season of the show. Oaktree b (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to WP:BIO1E. If in-depth coverage of her other claimed achievements is unearthed, I'll happily reconsider. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The win is noteworthy, but with nothing else of note, the win merits nothing more than maybe a delete to that season of the show. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 05:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bauchi State College of Agriculture[edit]

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

Nigerian further education college (non degree granting) that does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 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!} 21:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The only consensus I see is that this article needs some care and improvement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multicultural family in South Korea[edit]

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

OR essay, should probably be deleted and/or merged with Demographics of South Korea if there's anything worth salvaging. Ploni (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Korea and South Korea. Ploni (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment of pros and cons:
- On the pro side, the topic, on its face, is one that can merit coverage, even as a stand-along article. The article provides references, and it plausible to me that there would even more scholarship and discussion on the matter in Korea (the challenge for most non-Koreans wikipedians, is being able to read publications in Korean). The article also provides tables and graphs which is a nice complement to the text of the article. And I am inclined to believe that it was written in good faith; I think it was a university/academic contribution
- On the con side, the writing is lacking; I agree it does feel like an essay. Some non-trivial amount of work would be needed to improve it.
I wish we could keep and improve it over deleting it, but I understand that the article as it exists is not apt for Wikipedia. I am pinging @Piotrus:@Finnusertop: who I believe had made attempts to improve this article and/or have an interest in this geography. Thank you. Al83tito (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article could use further cleanup, but the nom has just presented an assertion that this is an an OR essay, without elaborating here nor on talk, IMHO that's a failure of WP:BEFORE. The article cites scholarly sources, and I in the parts I checked I didn't notice obvious essay-like language ("in my opinion", etc). The topic is notable, I don't see the need for WP:TNT, and WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I might have used a better title but the article seems ok, not a topic I would have thought of. Unsure of notability. Sourcing seems good. Perhaps a rewrite would help. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an article for Racism in South Korea. Dream Focus 22:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus The topics are related but not identical. Consider Multiracial Americans (where Multicultural family in the United States could redirect to) to Racism in the United States... PS. I think multi-cultural framing is more European, US is all about race terminology. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 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!} 21:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tosi List for Veneto. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Veneto for Autonomy[edit]

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

Local assembly group that does not meet the principles of general notability. The page begins with a substantial original research: Veneto for Autonomy was not a political party, but a mere group in the Regional Council of Veneto. The first part of the "History" section concerns the Tosi List, the second part merely states that the group was founded (while the last line concerns exclusively Roberto Caon and not this group).

The exact same information can be found on the Tosi List for Veneto page, so at most it could be transformed into a redirect to the latter. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:21, 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)} 14:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This political party or whatever you want to call it (also an assembly group is encyclopedic... why not?) was active for several years, it was represented in the Regional Council of Veneto (a region with 5 million people) for three years by a leading regional politician, included other notable members (like Liga Veneta's former presidente Luca Baggio), obtained 3.6% in the 2020 Venetian regional election in a joint list with Forza Italia named "Forza Italia – Autonomy for Veneto" (this should be written both in this article and the article about the election) and was represented in the Italian Parliament for seven years. The article clearly deserves 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 with Tosi List for Veneto, in order to preserve the article's history, at least. --Checco (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Veneto for Autonomy has not been represented in the Italian Parliament for seven years, Roberto Caon was a member of Forza Italia. The "Veneto for Autonomy" group was made up of only one person, Maurizio Conte. Baggio, in addition to being no longer a regional councilor in 2017, has never joined this "political organization", but to an unknown party with a similar name: Veneto per le Autonomie. I am not aware that any source certifies that the wording "Autonomy for Veneto" in the Forza Italia list was due to the link with this group. This page is really badly written. Excluding these original researches and incorrect information, what little remains is already written on the page of the Tosi List for Veneto.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Checco,

1) could you please share sources backing your claims? I can't find anywhere that Veneto per l'Autonomia obtained 3.6% in the 2020 Venetian regional election and that it was able to elect a representative in Italian parliament.

2) "The article clearly deserves an article of its own" is not a valid argument. A subject deserves an article only if the subject is notable. The mere fact that the subject exists doesn't mean that it is notable. As primary criteria, a subject is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I would like to highlight the word presumed, which means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. Finally, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. P1221 (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I perfectly understand that it is difficult to find sources on minor parties in the web, but Wikipedia and encyclopedias in general is especially useful at gathering information on issues of which ordinary people are not aware of. Veneto for Autonomy, a party whose main members and founders were Conte, Caon and Baggio[7] (you may not know them, but Caon and Baggio are besides Conte in this picture from VdA's founding press conference and the three were together also previously),[8] soon became an electoral ally and then an associate party of Forza Italia. Baggio, who was the party's president, was very close to Conte and they both joined Forza Italia at some point.[9][10][11] Similarly, did Caon.[12] When Conte joined Forza Italia, his affiliation in the Regional Council was changed to "Forza Italia – Veneto for Autonomy" (see an official letter of the joint group). In the 2020 Venetian regional election the alliance was confirmed and Conte was an unsuccessful candidate in the province of Padua.[13] In the meantime, Caon had been re-elected to the Chamber of Deputies in 2018. --Checco (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These sources confirm a few things: 1. VpA was a group on the regional council (not a party); 2. the sources certainly demonstrate a political closeness between Conte (member of VpA) and Baggio and Caon, but no source explicitly declares the direct adhesion of the latter two to VpA (since it was a group and they were not regional councilors), so their adhesion is only supposed; 3. the affiliation of VpA (that is Conte) to Forza Italia was well known, as was his candidacy in its list. On the other hand, the joint electoral list between FI and this group is not proven. This source ([14]) claims that the additional diction "Autonomia per il Veneto" (not "Veneto per l'Autonomia") in Forza Italia's list was due to its support for Veneto's regional autonomy.

I think you did well to report these sources, but personally I think they are not sufficient to demonstrate the relevance of VpA... De facto, the only thing proven about VPA is that it was a split from the Tosi List. --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, I have a question to ask: which source affirms that Baggio was president of the party?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I perfectly understand that it is difficult to find sources on minor parties in the web printed materials (newspapers, magazines, books...) are accepted sources, too.

but Wikipedia and encyclopedias in general is especially useful at gathering information on issues of which ordinary people are not aware of quite so... Wikipedia gathers information on notable subjects, not on everything. A political party created for supporting the election of a mayor in Morterone cannot find a place in Wikipedia, in my opinion...

The source 1 and the article of which you posted the picture clearly define "Veneto per l’Autonomia" as a Gruppo consiliare, therefore "Veneto per l’Autonomia" is not a party (an encyclopedia shall be very precise on terminology). Sources 3, 4 and 5 don't say that Baggio was president of "Veneto per l’Autonomia" (they don't even say if he was part of it...).

All in all, it seems to me that "Veneto per l’Autonomia" was just a group of three persons, which were elected in Veneto's regional parliament under a different party (Tosi List for Veneto), then merged in Forza Italia, without presenting at an election under the name "Veneto per l’Autonomia" (for the records, the name used after the merge with Forza Italia was "FORZA ITALIA - AUTONOMIA PER IL VENETO" - Autonomy for Veneto, not Veneto for Autonomy..) P1221 (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for two inaccurate infos I wrote above: first, Caon was member of the Chamber of Deputies since joining VpA for five years, not seven; second, Baggio was not the party's president.

It is unfortunately impossible to find local newspapers of 2017 or 2018, but everything that is included in the article is correct and, as I have shown, more infos and sources could be added. VpA has been active for five years and it is still active now. There is no doubt, per sources, that it was established by three people: Conte, Caon and Baggio. Finally, it does not really matter how you want to call it (party, group, grouping, etc.), as it is clearly relevant for this encylopedia. I disagree that VpA is not a political party, but why should elective assembly groups excluded from Wikipedia? VpA has enough relevance, sources and history for having an article of its own, otherwise it is surely better to merge it with Tosi List for Veneto instead of simply deleting it. --Checco (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assembly groups can be included in Wikipedia, as long as they meet notability guidelines, like for parties. And in any case, it is necessary to answer the following question: Did "Veneto per l’Autonomia" something notable enough for deserving its own article in Wikipedia? (and no, "it exists/existed" is not a valid answer). P1221 (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tosi List for Veneto, as per arguments made above. Yakme (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tosi List for Veneto, as per Scia Della Cometa's comments. P1221 (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there support for the redirect to Tosi List for Veneto suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Personally, it seems to me that the consensus goes in this direction.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 00:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ravisankar (script writer and director)[edit]

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

BLP of a screenwriter and director sourced to passing mentions and lacking in depth coverage. Searching for other sources online is hard given the similarity to Ravi Shankar, so it’s possible there are other sources out there Ive not seen. Mccapra (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Film, and India. Mccapra (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Individual Speedway Latvian Championship[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Returns no results on Google Scholar or JSTOR. F Adesdae 378 20:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. F Adesdae 378 20:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Motorsport, and Latvia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I mean I agree this doesn't have any coverage to justify an article, but did the nominator seriously check JSTOR for coverage of a motorsport series? 5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 21:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agustín Eizaguirre[edit]

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

A football player who's claim to notability is winning an olympic medal *despite not actually playing a single minute on the pitch*. I know olympic medal winners are generally considered intrinsically notable. Does this extend to people who never actually played? BrigadierG (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A Google search brings up what appears to be significant Spanish-language coverage. (Interestingly, his team was Spain's first-ever national football team.) AiGenly (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: the nominator asks a good question but does not actually advance an argument for deletion. St Anselm (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've found two newspaper articles: one from 2011 from El Diario Vasco, one from 1961 on the occasion of Eizaguirre's death from Mundo Deportivo. I've used the first source to expand the article. Unfortunately, the second, old one is difficult to read and use. What did you find, @AiGenly:? Robby.is.on (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no matter played he or not. He is the medalist. --Bigneeerman (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sourcing already in the article to show notability. Giant Snowman 17:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable Olympic footballer; Passes WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 20. By the time I finish writing this, another twenty will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The People of Freedom. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Right[edit]

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

A very small and unknown party, which does not respect the principles of general notability. Page written in three lines, at most it can be merged with the "Factions" section of the page of The People of Freedom. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 15:11, 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) 16:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly, with the passing of time, it is difficult to find sources on an old minor party, but we should not be affected by recentism and value some contents that make Wikipedia great, precisely because it can gather information on little-known subjects, for the benefit of readers. The political party was one of the founding groups of The People of Freedom. for the sake of readers, it is better to have it as a stand-alone article. However, if it is not possible to keep it as I would like, an alternative (worse) solution would be to merge it with The People of Freedom, pointing to the section on "Factions", in order to preserve the article's history, at least. --Checco (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of the passing of time: if a subject is relevant the sources are found, if it is not relevant they are not found. This party is clearly not so relevant, otherwise the sources would be found. Obviously it makes sense to mention it on the page of the People of Freedom. But a standing alone article of three lines like this one makes no sense in my view.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 08:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not a single accessible and reliable source. The party, if it ever existed (since this I could not verify), existed for 4 months and had no weight whatsoever. Definitely not passing the WP:GNG. Yakme (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as per Yakme's comments. P1221 (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The People of Freedom, under the factions sections.--Autospark (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The People of Freedom as ATD HighKing⁺⁺ 18:08, 31 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)} 19:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Right-libertarianism BrigadierG (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the "Factions" section of The People of Freedom, per nom. and others. Sal2100 (talk) 21:52, 3 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) 16:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Child Care Institutions in India[edit]

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

This is just a WP:DIRECTORY or non-notable institutions. KSAWikipedian (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and India. KSAWikipedian (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More specifically, this is a failure of WP:NOTSTATS. BrigadierG (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, useless dead-end stub of WP:MILL cruft. Dronebogus (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless article, not encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TheRollBoss001 (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does this qualify as WP:SNOW KSAWikipedian (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above. Perfect example of WP:DIRECTORY and WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, non notable and fails WP:GNG. If it's a list, it fails WP:LISTN. Considering that the article has a single unrelated ref, IMO it could arguably be PRODed. VickKiang (talk) 22:32, 2 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!} 23:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Vyfhuis[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. All mentions are of a trivial nature. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and South America. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. W C M_email 07:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:56, 1 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!} 23:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

B. D. Yadav[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG also deans do not meet WP:PROF KSAWikipedian (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and India. KSAWikipedian (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable academic based on what I can see. Mccapra (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amitabh Vijayvargiya[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant coverage to meet NSPORTS or GNG. The previous AfD was closed as Keep based on the likely existence of SIGCOV sources; no sources have been found to exist or been added to the articles, and no objective evidence of their existence has been provided as required by WP:NRV. NSPORTS no longer allows presumption of notability and SPORTBASIC explicitly requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. The only non-database source is routine coverage of a single event and does not provide a level of depth that could be used to meet SIGCOV or build out a viable article. –dlthewave ☎ 15:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. –dlthewave ☎ 15:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the strong consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amitabh Vijayvargiya. The fact that sports notability criteria have changed does not affect the notability of this cricketer. Note that per WP:NEXIST sources do not need to be present in the article. St Anselm (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the updated criteria in the opening paragraph of WP:NSPORT - "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", so going below you find it covers cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level. This is the second time this article has been nominated at AfD, with the nom following a previous pattern of re-nominating similar articles (one, two, three). When they were not satisfied when all three of those were kept, the nom sent all three to DRV. All three of those were all closed as endorse (IE keep). At worst, redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The SNG which you linked says "Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." This article fails the proof of SIGCOG requirement as well as WP:SPORTBASIC #5. –dlthewave ☎ 19:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It's my belief that GNG passing sourcing exists on the subject, likely in offline or non-English language sourcing, however none has been forthcoming since the last AfD, hence my weak delete. I would suggest a redirect here, but there's no suitable one given he's played for multiple sides. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Bhaskar source is a press release with comments from the subject picked up by numerous other outlets. All other sources I found for "अमिताभ विजयवर्गीय" in the first three pages of Google results were in the context of IDCA/BCCI administrative announcements, comments and announcements he made in his capacity as Secretary of IDCA or as a BCCI committee head, or mentions in articles discussing IDCA president Kailash Vijayvargiya, rather than discussion of him. JoelleJay (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence that WP:GNG/WP:NBASIC is met based off of the sources presented here or in the article. I have conducted a thorough search for sources that cover this person and I have been unable to find evidence of the individual passing WP:SIGCOV. There is a community consensus that participation-based criteria within NSPORT are not sufficient to establish that an individual is notable and that sports biographies must include examples of SIGCOV. As such, in light of WP:CONLEVEL, I see no reason that the article should be kept. Arguments that participation-based thresholds are acceptable for notability should be WP:DISCARDed per WP:CONLEVEL. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if enough refs do exist, this will be recreated separately from a database listing. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:53, 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subodh Saxena[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant coverage to meet NSPORTS or GNG. The previous AfD was closed as Keep based on the likely existence of SIGCOV sources; no sources have been found to exist or been added to the articles. NSPORTS no longer allows presumption of notability and SPORTBASIC explicitly requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. The single non-database source is a mere passing mention and does not meet the SIGCOV requirement. –dlthewave ☎ 15:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. –dlthewave ☎ 15:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the strong consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subodh Saxena. The fact that sports notability criteria have changed does not affect the notability of this cricketer. Note that per WP:NEXIST sources do not need to be present in the article. St Anselm (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Sources don't need to be present in the article but they do need to exist; I note that this is the second time this article has been nominated for deletion, and in the year since the previous discussion no one has been able to find suitable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the updated criteria in the opening paragraph of WP:NSPORT - "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", so going below you find it covers cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level. This is the second time this article has been nominated at AfD, with the nom following a previous pattern of re-nominating similar articles (one, two, three). When they were not satisfied when all three of those were kept, the nom sent all three to DRV. All three of those were all closed as endorse (IE keep). At worst, redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misrepresentation of NCRIC from an editor who is now banned for their AfD conduct. That section actually says "Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof" (emphasis mine). –dlthewave ☎

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. While it's true that WP:NCRICKET mentions playing at the highest level, it says nothing about that making a subject notable, or that playing at the highest level meets some requirement. What it says is "cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." So even the guideline being cited to support keeping the article doesn't actually support keeping the article. Since there is no further proof of sufficient coverage, then per WP:NCRICKET we must assume there is no notability. This article doesn't even have the presumption of notability, let alone established, demonstrated notability that articles on Wikipedia must have. WP:NEXIST does say that sources don't need to be in the article, but the sources do need to exist. There's been more than sufficient opportunity to present evidence of such sources, and none have materialized. For my part I have searched and came up empty. I also looked at the three other similar nominations for deletion before making this comment. Given that they are functionally identical my comment for all four will be the same (which seems to be the theme here with all the comments). - Aoidh (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'd like to think that GNG passing sourcing does exist on the subject, likely in offline or non-English language media, but none has been forthcoming since the last AfD around a year ago, hence my weak delete. I would suggest a redirect, but given he played for a number of sides there isn't a suitable one here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:07, 1 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. There was consensus that the subject passes GNG. (non-admin closure) Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Mungar[edit]

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

For the last fourteen years this BLP stub has been sourced only to an unselective database. Deprodded. —S Marshall T/C 15:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 15:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to pass GNG, see the following: Milton, Steve (January 8, 2005). "Mungar takes his place in Bonnies Hall of Fame". The Hamilton Spectator. p. SP09. (available at [15]); "Former Bonnie Mungar reflects on life in basketball". Olean Times Herald. June 25, 2019.; Butler, J. P. (May 7, 2020). "Former Bona star Mungar played with 'Worm' at Portsmouth camp". The Bradford Era.; Milton, Steve (July 10, 2015). "Shocked by Ben, and by Brazil". The Spectator.; "World-class athlete, cop speaks at Routes gala". Hamilton News. February 11, 2014.; and "Bona more capable of controlling boards with controlled Mungar". Democrat and Chronicle. December 26, 1983. p. 37 – via Newspapers.com.. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, taking those sources in order:-

The Olean Times Herald gives error 451: site access denied because the provider doesn't want to comply with the GDPR. This is common with US local news sources. That together with the title and name of the provider suggests that it's likely WP:MILL coverage in a local news source.
The Bradford Era gives the same error and indeed refers me to exactly the same person's email address if I want to complain, so I seriously doubt if it's meaningfully different from source #1.
The Hamilton Spectator, which is not the tremendously reputable source called The Spectator but some similarly-named local news source from the US, does display for me. It's WP:MILL coverage in which Mr Mungar reminisces about his sports and policing career. In the fourth paragraph from the bottom, it seems to admit that Mr Mungar never played professionally.
The Hamilton News, is WP:MILL coverage in a local newspaper about a speech that Mr Mungar made at a gala in 2014.
The Democrat and Chronicle, a US local newspaper, is from 26 December 1983. It describes Mr Mungar's height (apparently he's 6ft 8in) and his basketball play style; apparently his play has much improved. I see from the box at the bottom right that he was number 25 and was the highest scorer for his amateur team. No mention of ever winning anything.

To be quite frank, I'm not greatly impressed with any of that. Mr Mungar is doubtless a good sportsman and devoted servant to his community, but I've received more local newspaper coverage than he has, and I'm not notable at all.—S Marshall T/C 17:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First off, WP:MILL is an essay and has no effect whatsoever on whether coverage is significant. The first source ("Mungar takes his place in Bonnies Hall of Fame") has 651 words on him, so definitely SIGCOV ("addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content"). The Olean article is over 1,400 words on his basketball career, so that's SIGCOV piece number two (already we have enough for GNG! Which only requires "multiple"). The Bradford Era article is over 1,000 words on him and how he was teammates with Dennis Rodman, so SIGCOV piece number three. The Spectator one is over 600 words on Mungar, so SIGCOV #4. Hamilton News is over 500 words, that means SIGCOV piece number five. And then finally there's the Democrat and Chronicle one, which is a few paragraphs on him, so probably SIGCOV. So we've got at least five pieces of significant coverage here, and GNG only requires two! BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:GNG with the several significant sources found by BeanieFan11. Alvaldi (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to pass GNG. Rlendog (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan11. St Anselm (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per BeanieFan11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per sources provided. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources support that WP:GNG is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeeva Rao[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant coverage to meet NSPORTS or GNG. The previous AfD was closed as Keep based on the likely existence of SIGCOV sources; no sources have been found to exist or been added to the articles. NSPORTS no longer allows presumption of notability and SPORTBASIC explicitly requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 15:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. –dlthewave ☎ 15:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the strong consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjeeva Rao. The fact that sports notability criteria have changed does not affect the notability of this cricketer. Note that per WP:NEXIST sources do not need to be present in the article. St Anselm (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Sources don't need to be present in the article but they do need to exist; I note that this is the second time this article has been nominated for deletion, and in the year since the previous discussion no one has been able to find suitable sources, which suggests there are no such sources. Redirection is not suitable due to the existence of an elected official called B. Sanjeeva Rao. BilledMammal (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the updated criteria in the opening paragraph of WP:NSPORT - "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", so going below you find it covers cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level. This is the second time this article has been nominated at AfD, with the nom following a previous pattern of re-nominating similar articles (one, two, three). When they were not satisfied when all three of those were kept, the nom sent all three to DRV. All three of those were all closed as endorse (IE keep). At worst, redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the sports specific criteria includes WP:SPORTSCRIT. In addition, NCRIC doesn't presume notability, it suggests significant coverage is likely to exist if it and WP:SPORTSCRIT is met. BilledMammal (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. While it's true that WP:NCRICKET mentions playing at the highest level, it says nothing about that making a subject notable, or that playing at the highest level meets some requirement. What it says is "cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." So even the guideline being cited to support keeping the article doesn't actually support keeping the article. Since there is no further proof of sufficient coverage, then per WP:NCRICKET we must assume there is no notability. This article doesn't even have the presumption of notability, let alone established, demonstrated notability that articles on Wikipedia must have. WP:NEXIST does say that sources don't need to be in the article, but the sources do need to exist. There's been more than sufficient opportunity to present evidence of such sources, and none have materialized. For my part I have searched and came up empty. - Aoidh (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It's my opinion that GNG passing sources likely exists on the subject, in either offline or non-English language media, but in the year since the last AfD none has been forthcoming, therefore I'm at weak delete as there's no suitable redirect here as he played for a number of different sides. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems nobody is really looking hard for sources here. There's an article here[16] that describes a match and comments of his career that, if it isn't sigcov, it comes close. There are a number of articles about his being an official[17] and I found a couple of database articles that referenced him as a club or regional official, he's also mentioned in the book Cricket wallah : with England in India, 1981-2 in a piece which has been excerpted in The Picador book of cricket and Bat, ball & boundary : a cricketer's companion. These are admittedly passing mentions, but it seems to me useful that sportsmen who get mentioned in anthologies of sportswriting and have significant careers be described in encyclopedia articles. There's some more coverage here[18] and he gets a mention in this book of cricket records[19]. With him showing up in these kinds of sources, I'm confident that if we actually had access to a good database of Indian newspapers for the relevant period of his playing career, he'd show up there too.--Jahaza (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I think those were likely seen but overlooked, because they are the very definition of trivial coverage and don't contribute to notability per WP:GNG. If that's the best we can find, it kind of supports the fact that there's nothing there in terms of coverage. While it's possible sources exist, per WP:NCRICKET we should not assume sources exist at this level. - Aoidh (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial, passing mentions and appearances in lists do not contribute to GNG and certainly do not indicate further sources might exist. Primary play-by-play recaps of matches are routine in cricket and do not count towards GNG either. The article does not have a single SIGCOV source, and so fails SPORTCRIT and should be deleted. JoelleJay (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The issue here is verifiability (not notability). The cited sources have been challenged in some detail; it is alleged that the cited sources do not support the article text. To rebut that allegation, the "keep" side would have to show how the sources do in fact support this content. This has not been done here, which means that WP:V, a core policy, mandates deletion. Sandstein 12:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wahas ibn Abu al-Tayyib[edit]

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

I could not even verify that this person existed. A Google search turns up only one hit, a different Wikipedia article. If there are alternate spellings for his name, then we need these to do a search for legitimate references. This spelling of his name is a complete dead end. A loose necktie (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has seven refs to scholarly works. Is the nominator claiming that these refs are not valid? If so, can they explain please? If there is no claim that the existing refs are inadequate, then I don't see the basis for this nomination. Mccapra (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep -- The article has several references, apparently to scholarly works. The fact that the nom cannot find these on-line (which seems to be the basis of nom's complaint) is not a ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sourcing is bullshit. Compare Abu Tayeb Daoud bin Abdul Rahman and Hamzah ibn Wahas. Every one I checked failed verification. I don't doubt that these people existed (see de:Scherifen von Mekka#Herrscherliste), but the articles as they stand are not worth keeping. بندر, can you explain why you are citing a source "retrieved 12 September 2016" before you even joined WP? Srnec (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are several sources for example (أمراء مكة عبر عصور الإسلام، لعبدالفتاح راوة), but it was mentioned with simple information, as it is a very old era. I do not know the reason for the deletion, a historical figure has no interest in me in that. Regarding (see de:Scherifen von Mekka#Herrscherliste) you need to change like the Arabic Wikipedia. Regarding "retrieved 12 September 2016", This reference was cited to confirm that the alashraf Sulaymani ruled Mecca for a period of time. I think that the candidate of the article for discussion of deletion does not know well the reason for deleting the article, perhaps he is not familiar with Islamic history. بندر (talk) 04:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point of the question about the dated citation: Srnec is asking how it is that on 17 July 2022 you came to incorporate and cite material from a source you label as not having been consulted since 16 September 2016 - short of you possessing a photographic memory, it would seem to indicate that the citation was simply copy/pasted from another page, perhaps without even looking at the source itself. (It is disconcerting that there are 17 pages that contain this source/retrieval date, most having been created or added by you more recently than the Sep 2016 date claimed. A retrieval date is generally superfluous for such a source, because unlike online sources, something formally fixed to paper does not subsequently change, but here it is a red-flag for what is at best sloppy copy/paste citation.) Agricolae (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is necessary to update the list of the princes of Mecca de:Scherifen von Mekka#Herrscherliste, without logic, the grandfather rules and is from a certain faction of the "alashraf Sulaymani", and after him two personalities from another faction, and then the grandson comes after that. This is illogical, as there was a permanent conflict over the rule of Mecca and Hijaz during the Fatimid Caliphate. بندر (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no real indication of individual notability. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 05:57, 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 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!} 23:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tihomir Živković[edit]

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

Was a BLP PROD at one point but subsequently contested. Can't find anything to suggest he passes WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I found a few hits in Google News but all are trivial mentions in match reports or photo captions. A Tips article has his name in the title but the body of the article only mentions him briefly, confirms his nationality, says he scored three goals in two games and contains a one-sentence quote from his coach. Even if this is 'significant coverage', we would still need at least one more independent source. A Croatian source search yielded nothing useful. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Croatia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sairusi Nalaubu[edit]

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

This is the first time I have used the XfD function so please let me know if I am making any mistakes. I have followed the instructions on the AFD page and in Twinkle.

The multiple issues banner was placed on the article over three months ago but no action has been taken to resolve the issues and so I must ask if the article should be removed.

The subject does not seem to meet the conditions set out on the WP:NSPORT page. Of the four sources cited, one is unobtainable, two are bare statistics only and the other is a short newspaper report which, to my mind, is what WP:SPORTBASIC classifies as "routine game coverage". I do not think any of the sources provide significant coverage as required by WP:NOTABILITY. I have done a Google search but I cannot see anything more than statistics, really, and I think some of the sites may not be reliable.

If there are other policies or guidelines I should be aware of, could someone please point them out? Thank you.

Sistorian (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Sistorian (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in terms of your use of the XfD function, this looks absolutely spot on to me. :) Will comment on notability at another time. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Spiderone. That is a relief! The instructions are very good, though, and the process is well explained. Sistorian (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These sources shoe he is notable in Fiji: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], and [27], among many many other sources from Oceania Football, Oceania Football Center, Fiji Live, Fiji Sun, Fiji Times, Fiji Football, FBC News, and Fiji Village. In addition, he is a significant player in the Fijian league with an ongoing international capped career. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 20. By the time I finish writing this, another twenty will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Interview, his wife is being interviewed about her husband, the story is by "FIJI FA MEDIA" and probably isn't independent of him, interview, 5+6 are from the Fiji FA, interview and finally an opinion piece. Dougal18 (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only put those sources on here because people told me that putting too much is bad for some reason, but if you search him up with the terms Oceania Football, Oceania Football Center, Fiji Live, Fiji Sun, Fiji Times, Fiji Football, FBC News, and Fiji Village, you will find many sources about him that are not listed here. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 17:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Das osmnezz. St Anselm (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Das osmnezz.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Rane[edit]

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

doesn't pass WP:GNG , and there is virtually no in-depth coverage of her in independent. ( One Source is but this movie is not released yet. [28]) PravinGanechari (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PravinGanechari (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin Dholpure[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NSPORT and GNG. The single non-database source is a narrative of a single game which doesn't discuss the subject in sufficient depth to meet SIGCOV. –dlthewave ☎ 13:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. –dlthewave ☎ 13:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the strong consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sachin Dholpure. The fact that sports notability criteria have changed does not affect the notability of this cricketer. Note that per WP:NEXIST sources do not need to be present in the article. St Anselm (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can disagree on whether or not NEXIST overrides the SPORTBASIC requirement, but I think it's clear that both guidelines require the proven existence of sources. Can you name one SIGCOV source? –dlthewave ☎ 15:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Sources don't need to be present in the article but they do need to exist; I note that this is the second time this article has been nominated for deletion, and in the year since the previous one no one has been able to find suitable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the updated criteria in the opening paragraph of WP:NSPORT - "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", so going below you find it covers cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level. This is the second time this article has been nominated at AfD, with the nom following a previous pattern of re-nominating similar articles (one, two, three). When they were not satisfied when all three of those were kept, the nom sent all three to DRV. All three of those were all closed as endorse (IE keep). At worst, redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The SNG which you linked says "Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." This article fails the proof of SIGCOG requirement as well as WP:SPORTBASIC #5. –dlthewave ☎ 19:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. While it's true that WP:NCRICKET mentions playing at the highest level, it says nothing about that making a subject notable, or that playing at the highest level meets some requirement. What it says is "cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." So even the guideline being cited to support keeping the article doesn't actually support keeping the article. Since there is no further proof of sufficient coverage, then per WP:NCRICKET we must assume there is no notability. This article doesn't even have the presumption of notability, let alone established, demonstrated notability that articles on Wikipedia must have. WP:NEXIST does say that sources don't need to be in the article, but the sources do need to exist. There's been more than sufficient opportunity to present evidence of such sources, and none have materialized. For my part I have searched and came up empty. I also looked at the three other similar nominations for deletion before making this comment. Given that they are functionally identical my comment for all four will be the same (which seems to be the theme here with all the comments). - Aoidh (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While NCRIC and NSPORTS have been updated since the previous AfD, there was a GNG passing source provided at the time of the previous AfD. It is likely that some coverage may well exist in offline non-English language media, although none has been found in the last year. I'm at weak keep because of this, but at worst there's a redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers as a valid WP:ATD if required. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did see the source but it's just a brief and routine mention in an article about a Cricket match, not significant coverage of Dholpure himself. –dlthewave ☎ 03:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NCRICKET, it's actually not likely that there's coverage, and a reference with a trivial mention does not meet WP:GNG in any way (even ignoring the fact that articles require multiple reliable sources with significant coverage). WP:GNG isn't even approaching the level of being met here. - Aoidh (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The single non-stats source on him is strictly a routine, primary match recap, not SIGCOV. It describes how he and other players performed at one non-notable match, in a non-notable tournament, the exact same way every other such match is summarized. JoelleJay (talk) 08:00, 2 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. There is consensus to delete: guidelines are now clear that sportspeople need sources rather than only match participation for an article. One "keep" does not address this and the other is by a now-banned editor, which I discount.

There's no consensus for a redirect (which would seem like a sensible ATD to me). Whether to create a redirect after deletion is therefore up to editors. Sandstein 12:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dinkar Deshpande[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is sourced only to a single database, and no significant coverage has been found even after going through AfD a year ago. Fails SPORTBASIC which requires at least one SIGCOV source to be cited in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 12:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. –dlthewave ☎ 12:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the strong consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinkar Deshpande. The fact that sports notability criteria have changed does not affect the notability of this cricketer. Note that per WP:NEXIST sources do not need to be present in the article. St Anselm (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Sources don't need to be present in the article but they do need to exist; I note that this is the second time this article has been nominated for deletion, and in the year since the previous discussion no one has been able to find suitable sources, which suggests there are no such sources. BilledMammal (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the updated criteria in the opening paragraph of WP:NSPORT - "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", so going below you find it covers cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level. This is the second time this article has been nominated at AfD, with the nom following a previous pattern of re-nominating similar articles (one, two, three). When they were not satisfied when all three of those were kept, the nom sent all three to DRV. All three of those were all closed as endorse (IE keep). At worst, redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. While it's true that WP:NCRICKET mentions playing at the highest level, it says nothing about that making a subject notable, or that playing at the highest level meets some requirement. What it says is "cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." So even the guideline being cited to support keeping the article doesn't actually support keeping the article. Since there is no further proof of sufficient coverage, then per WP:NCRICKET we must assume there is no notability. This article doesn't even have the presumption of notability, let alone established, demonstrated notability that articles on Wikipedia must have. WP:NEXIST does say that sources don't need to be in the article, but the sources do need to exist. There's been more than sufficient opportunity to present evidence of such sources, and none have materialized. For my part I have searched and came up empty. I also looked at the three other similar nominations for deletion before making this comment. Given that they are functionally identical my comment for all four will be the same (which seems to be the theme here with all the comments). - Aoidh (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete While I believe that it is likely that sourcing that passes GNG probably exists on this player, none has been forthcoming in the year since the previous AfD, with the change in guidelines both the NCRIC and NSPORTS also. I'd suggest redirect, but there's not really a suitable one here given he played for a number of teams. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Aoidh. No SIGCOV sources (or even just one source) have been found in the last year, and there is nothing to suggest they exist. JoelleJay (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers. Per community consensus, a GNG-passing source must exist for sportspersons to be considered notable. I see no evidence that this is met and per WP:CONLEVEL consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Since the individual fails WP:GNG, there is no policy-based reason for keeping the article. The individual's name appears on the list that is my proposed redirect target (and the list's selection criteria would include him) and ESPN CricInfo is reliable enough to establish his existence IMO, so I see a redirect as proper here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if sources exist, the article will be recreated separately from a database listing. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:56, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Guba attack[edit]

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

Seems like a minor raid (4 Finnish and 4 Soviet KIA each) to be having its own article. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Finland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears to be notable; the attack received wide acclaim at the time for its daring and earned Arnold Majewski some fame, as per Finland at War: the Continuation and Lapland Wars 1941–45 by Vesa Nenye et al. It is also mentioned in the book Special Reconnaissance and Advanced Small Unit Patrolling: Tactics, Techniques and Procedures for Special Operations Forces by Edward Wolcoff as an example of how special reconnaissance forces can work in conjunction with other types of military units. What made it remarkable is that it was conducted something like 100km inside of Russian territory. It also had some bigger strategic purpose which could be covered more in detail by improving the article. Chagropango (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chagropango: Since you've already looked it up, do you think you'd have the time to make sure the article is a bit better sourced, too? Assuming the work is already half-done and it wouldn't be too time-consuming for you. /Julle (talk) 17:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I second Julle. The article right now does no suggest the event is notable, due to low quality sourcing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Convinced by Chagropango. /Julle (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage appears to exist. In addition to what was identified by Chagropango, here's a few newspaper stories from the last few years: [29], [30], [31]. One of these states that there's also a book called Katkaiskaa Muurmannin rata – Mai Guban sotaretken kadonneet kuvat (English: Cut the Murmansk railroad - The lost photos from the Mai Guba campaign). Also mentioned in passing in Exploding wilderness : guerrilla-type activities in the Finnish art of war (2015) by Markku Palokangas, even if that doesn't really count for the purposes of this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljleppan (talk • contribs) 08:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Parekh[edit]

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

I don't think this article passes WP:GNG. There is nothing to find reliable. Nupamjo (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Nupamjo (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likewise I don’t see any in depth coverage. Mccapra (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of significant coverage found. Pleae ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:52, 1 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 Music of Grand Theft Auto V#GTA Online: The Contract. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GTA Online: The Contract[edit]

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

This article simply lacks enough content or notability to justify a split from its parent article; it is covered in enough detail there, and I believe expansion is unlikely. (And if we're being pedantic, this was never technically released as an EP—just a series of singles at the same time, hence the phrasing "List of singles" in the Track listing.) – Rhain ☔ 10:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Video games. – Rhain ☔ 10:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Music of Grand Theft Auto V per nom as an WP:ATD. That said, I do not see why this had to come to AfD as there is no argument given why it should be deleted and it is very obviously a pertinent search term. Per WP:ATD-M, AfD is not for merging. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: AfD is suitable per WP:ATD-R. – Rhain ☔ 11:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair, I will keep that in mind. I have also changed my !vote to "redirect". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. OceanHok (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Music of Grand Theft Auto V#GTA Online: The Contract per above. Not enough coverage to sustain a dedicated article and a dedicated section already exists on the topic. Redirection was the right move and unclear why it was reverted. czar 03:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, this title should redirect to Grand Theft Auto Online, not the music article. Neocorelight (Talk) 10:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Neocorelight, the music article has a dedicated section on the topic whereas the Online article does not. czar 04:01, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Czar, not a dedicated section but it does discussed in 2021 section. Neocorelight (Talk) 04:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And remember I am talking about the title, not the EP. Neocorelight (Talk) 04:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Music of Grand Theft Auto V#GTA Online: The Contract where the EP is discussed. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The title doesn't even indicate it's an EP. The update/DLC should be the primary topic. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grand Theft Auto Online. Anyone can place a piped link to Music of Grand Theft Auto V within an appropriate paragraph to discuss the soundtrack issue, but GTA Online: The Contract itself should be an appropriate search term for the DLC content itself. Haleth (talk) 11:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's a consensus to redirect the article, but there are 2 suggested target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:00, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Music of Grand Theft Auto V#GTA Online: The Contract as the best possible fit for the content. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Mary Wilkes[edit]

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

Non-notable person. A loose necktie (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and leaning keep, still thinking. This is a difficult one, because ProQuest provides four articles with passing mentions and quotes, all pointing out that she has done things to sailing. Quoting from here:"Helen Mary Wilkes, IODA President of Honour, has been awarded the gold medal of World Sailing following thirty four years of service, most recently as vice-chair of the WS Classes Committee. She is only the fifth woman to receive this medal since its creation in 1990." I thought would give her a pass at WP:ANYBIO, but I cannot establish that the award she got it significant or well known. So I fund myself unable to make a policy-based argument here, and yet she still seems notable. Her presence in the encyclopedia seems a net positive. Is this one of those rare situations where I should say keep because WP:IAR and WP:5P5...I'm reluctant to say that...maybe I will. I'll wait for now. I would like to argue to keep. I'm keen to see what others say and will follow the arguments made and may update this. CT55555 (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind we are talking about someone whose claim to fame is that she was an administrator for a local yacht club. The award she may have received was probably one given by the club to one of its members, and therefore doesn't represent any real competition (which is why it is not notable-- it probably exists, it just doesn't matter). If we are going to claim IAR, maybe it should be for someone with greater notability than this person. A loose necktie (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think her greatest claim to fame is getting the President of Honour award from World Sailing, which is an international organisation based in a different country.

Presumably IAR is going to be quoted at borderline cases, if it was for slam dunk massively famous people, GNG would apply. That said, I'm still uncertain, still thinking. I"m happy to see some article improvement occurring. Maybe that will help give me clarity. CT55555 (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

daffodilocean has contributed a link to the Sail-World magazine article with detail of the citation for the President's Development Award.

Have added a link to the Optimist World Championship page showing the legacy of her work, a world championship with as many nations participating at Under-16 level as at Junior Wimbledon tennis. Robertowilkes (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ANYBIO#2 for contributions in the field of sailing. Gold medal award, and other awards in the same field; president of several sailing organizations over 30 years. Bruxton (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The award might be notable (I'm not sure), but I find no other sources. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To quote the citation for the award https://www.sail-world.com/Australia/ISAF-President-Development-Award-presented/-50826

“Since Helen-Mary became President of IODA in 1989, the number of countries which are members of the class has increased from 49 to 105. Continental championships have been established in Asia, Africa and Oceania,”

Increase in participation at the de facto Under-16 world sailing championship is shown at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimist_World_Championship

Also

“At the 2008 Olympic Sailing Competition, 23 out of 27 skippers of the medal-winning boats were former Optimist sailors.” Robertowilkes (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she was won a notable award and has had a long successful career. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the award she won is not notable (there is no Wikipedia article), and last time I checked, having a "long successful career" was not a notability criterion. If you want to argue "keep" it would be great if you could base that argument on something substantive and policy-related, yes? A loose necktie (talk)

Weak keep (I commented above), based on WP:ANYBIO criteria 2 The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. I think she has done so in sailing. I say weak because the note to that quote notes that usually there is in depth writing and for this subject there is not, but I still think she meets the criteria. But there is enough pieces of writing to create an article. CT55555 (talk) 15:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ANYBIO is for extremely exceptional honors, it does not encompass internal awards that aren't even predictive of SIGCOV in the relevant NSPORT subguideline. Two of the sources cited above announcing her award are in fact non-independent: ISAF is the awarding organization, and she is an IODA President of Honour, so neither of those can contribute to GNG. The Afloat does appear independent, but is only one source. SIGCOV outside of her receipt of the award is necessary for BLP1E and GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have mistakenly understood that I meant criterion 1 of ANYBIO, but it was criterion 2 that I mentioned. CT55555 (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case I think the important bit is the requirement the impact be widely recognized and enduring. JoelleJay (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and respect the point that you are making. It's not the clearest situation, which is why I said "weak". But I stand by my assertion. I see today that User:Cielquiparle did some work on the article, which is great, and I think makes clearer why I think she has indeed made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. I'm trying to be a bit more WP:COAL so I'll try to avoid attempting to rebut any disagreement and hopefully let my analysis stand up for itself, even if you still disagree. CT55555 (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is very difficult to accurately assess importance and wide recognition when plaudits are sourced to award announcements from non-independent orgs, as they will of course always hype up an awardee's exceptionalism. That's why it's critical to find truly independent coverage spanning several years. JoelleJay (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on extensive revisions by all to overcome COI issues and clarify lasting international impact of Helen Mary Wilkes’s work. Just enough reliable independent coverage satisfying WP:BASIC including Afloat magazine (emphasis her role in Optimist class, in-depth in 2017, mentioned in 2014 article), plus Providence Journal (focus on her work in women’s match racing). Recipient of Gold Medal from World Sailing governing body recognizing her work with the International Optimist Dinghy Association (IODA) (body of industry coverage makes it clear that success within this field is far from assured or “easy”); she is also mentioned in The Irish Times (1995, 1996) and Afloat magazine for helping Ireland punch above its weight in sailing. Additional mentions over the years help to validate wider recognition of the impact she has had – e.g. Carrickfergus Times (Northern Ireland); Royal Cork Yacht Club (“Helen Mary Wilkes, an absolute legend of Optimist racing”); St. Thomas International Opti Regatta (USVI); Sailing World (US); The Winner’s Guide to Optimist Sailing (thanked by Gary Jobson); Laura Rolandi Award of the Cofradía Europea de Vela (Spain/Europe). Trophy for Top Girl at Optimist World Championship was renamed after her in 2017. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 13:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kasim Abid[edit]

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

This mostly unsourced BLP doesn't make a strong claim to notability. The subject is a filmmaker, but as far as I can see, neither he nor his films have received much coverage. This comes across as self-promotional as it is, though I have purged a lot of unsourced fluff. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Arts, Visual arts, Iraq, and United Kingdom. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's quoted as 'highly respected' here in UAE paper The National, this extensive review of Mirrors of Diaspora in Arab News, and this here review of Whispers of the Cities on Jadaliyya. Now we're off to Egypt's biggest newspaper Al Ahram and Egypt Today notes the screening of Mirrors at the first Iraqi Film Festival. Here we're screening at the DMZ International Documentary Film Festival - and by now I think we're wayyyyyy past WP:GNG for Abid. And there's more out there, folks. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:46, 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 11:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 05:59, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belgium international footballers born outside Belgium[edit]

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

As with List of Bahrain international footballers born outside Bahrain (AfD), List of Iran international footballers born outside Iran (AfD) and List of Norway international footballers born outside Norway (AfD), I fail to see how this list meets our inclusion criteria. Fails WP:LISTN due to lack of coverage on these individuals as a group or set and also violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and appears to be a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorisation. In other words, where is the evidence of detailed discussion regarding the birthplaces of Belgium international footballers? It seems to me to be a trivial characteristic. Could be merged perhaps but I fail to see why this information is important as Wikipedia is not supposed to be an exhaustive collection of stats. Just because information can be verified by statistics databases doesn't mean that we absolutely need to have an article on it. By the same logic, we wouldn't have List of Belgium international footballers taller than 1.80m even if such a list could be verified against databases. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No different to similar lists that have also recently been deleted. Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Fats40boy11 (talk) 11:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have added a few sources to the article which focus on precisely this topic. More work could definitely be done on improving the referencing. To say this one is no different to any others because they are on the same topic is somewhat lazy. I'm not sure how much I would find online about Iran, but as expected I found several about Belgium pretty quickly. Crowsus (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In no shape or form have any of those other articles affected my judgement here. The judgement that I made is that the article violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE the same way the other lists in my opinion did. Nothing in this discussion from what I can see is lazy. You have made your point just like others will make theirs, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that it’s somewhat lazy. Fats40boy11 (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found several references to the exact topic under discussion with not much effort, so I don't think it's fair to double down on your claim of indiscriminate in relation to Belgian players. The fact that you admit that the sources I have provided don't change your opinion suggests nothing would change your mind, so if you want to quote guidelines, sounds like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me.

I also have to comment on "we wouldn't have List of Belgium international footballers taller than 1.80m". What utter nonsense. The single differentiating factor in international sports is birthplace. Normally where you are from is the team you represent, there are of course several loopholes and caveats but it's still fairly unusual for that not to be the case and given the high profile of most international teams in this sport, that usually receives media coverage in some detail, and where that it is presented collectively it also makes it a valid topic (though not necessarily cast iron certainty) for a Wikipedia article. If there was some height based selection criteria for teams, and a loophole occasionally permitted players not meeting that standard to still be included, you can bet that would be commented upon at length in the media in certain countries, and would likewise be worthy of inclusion here. I couldn't see any attempt to make this comparison in the previous AfDs so not sure why it has been added now. Crowsus (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t necessarily agree with all of your points and it’s definitely not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. However, I will agree to disagree with you on this. Whatever the outcome of the AFD may be, I will respect the decision and of course I respect your opinion. Fats40boy11 (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As will I, of course. Nothing personal. Crowsus (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assess some of the sources. One issue is that they seem to focus more on ethnicity rather than birthplace - this is a similar but not identical topic to the one at hand. VP - at many points, this discusses Belgian-born players such as Marouane Fellaini, Zakaria Bakkali and Adnan Januzaj all of whom are only mentioned because of their ethnicity rather than birthplace. La Libre mentions naturalisation, which is of course relevant, but also lists players that don't meet the criteria such as Juan Lozano (never played for Belgium - correct me if I'm wrong) and Enzo Scifo, which is completely bizarre. Voetbal Krant discusses players with dual nationality but doesn't strictly discuss foreign-born players. In fact, the majority of this list are actually born in Belgium such as Michy Batshuayi, Yannick Carrasco, Nacer Chadli, Mousa Dembélé and Radja Nainggolan. It seems that the topic of "List of Belgium international footballers with foreign roots" is well covered as it seems the media is interested in footballers of different ethnicities but birthplace seems to take a backseat. For example, to draw a relevant comparison with an England international, I can't imagine anyone would say that England 'stole' Terry Butcher off Singapore! Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think there is sufficient coverage to show notability. Giant Snowman 15:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NLIST, sourcing added to the article focuses on the seperate topic of ethnicity rather than place of birth, meaning this is still non-notable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I fail to see the notability of any list of this sort. That said, if anyone can show me where there has been independent discussion of the overall topic of international footballers born outside the nations they represent – i.e. more than just a passing "Sydney Leroux was born in Canada but played her senior international soccer in the United States" – then please ping me back to this discussion. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:09, 3 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 Maaya Sakamoto. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 11:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hashiru[edit]

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

No claim of notability save one week at #87 in Oricon charts, tagged as needing independent refs since Dec 2019. Prodded and de-prodded. One line article with little chance of expansion, apparently. Richhoncho (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also find nothing that could be used to expand this article, but maybe there are more resources in Japanese. Chagropango (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maaya Sakamoto as WP:ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 06:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maaya Sakamoto. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Wick effect#2010 Galway case. The "keep" opinions don't address the question of notability and must be discounted. Since Wick effect has for now been kept, it remains a possible merge target. Sandstein 08:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Michael Faherty[edit]

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

Not notable in any way.--Trickipaedia (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it is one of the few notable cases of Spontaneous human combustion. Somewhereattheendofspace (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Wick effect#2010 Galway case or Spontaneous human combustion#Notable examples. If, as noted, the subject's only notability is as an example of another topic, then the content can easily be covered in the article about that topic. Guliolopez (talk) 00:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I don't see evidence of lasting coverage (although there is a spike), so it's probably better off in a list of some kind. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Spontaneous human combustion is indeed rare. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "What is rare is wonderful". This is a saying in Ireland. "What is rare is notable". This is not a policy/norm on Wikipedia. Unless I am missing something? Guliolopez (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, merge, redirect? There doesn't seem to be a consensus to delete this unusual article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, A widely publicized case of Spontaneous Human Combustion & one of the few notable cases of Such Happenings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DailyJew (talk • contribs) 04:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can those arguing for "keep", please frame their arguments on the basis of a specific policy? When did rarity and notability come to mean the same thing? "X is only one of a few examples of Y" doesn't read as an argument that "X" is notable. It reads as an argument for why "Y" is notable. (And perhaps a reason to cover X in the article on Y.) Guliolopez (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist. Note that this topic goes hand-in-hand with Wick effect, which is also nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wick effect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Very little in the way of substantive discussion, sadly. Sandstein 08:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wick effect[edit]

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

an alleged hypothesis about an alleged phenomenon. Uses name that can confound with ordinary phenomena. Need I say more?-- Trickipaedia (talk) 16:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nomination was improperly done, with no header or other formatting that's necessary for an AFD. The nom also put up a merge tag but only started a deletion discussion. I've fixed it up, but I don't know this subject well enough to make a vote. Glades12 (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nobody is looking at the log from over 2 weeks ago, so I'm relisting this for visibility. (non-admin closure)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Glades12 (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources I can find are for the "John Wick effect" (movies) or an actual wick effect in geology in GScholar. Nothing about this particular effect type. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Scientific American, Northeast Today, Gizmodo, LiveScience, https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2011/09/23/irishmans-death-ruled-spontaneous-combustion ABC News]. I have not thoroughly reviewed all of these articles yet (or else I'd be making a !vote), but they seem legit to me. jp×g 18:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but probably re-title. The "wick effect" is not being used in the title as a proper noun but a descriptive phrase. Hence the lower case "e". The effect is entirely non-controversial – it is how a candle burns. This article is restricted to one very limited aspect, however, and it is actually about the means by which there can be partial or total destruction of a human body by fire. There is some slight controversy about the matter, I suppose, but it is very widely discussed. The effect is in no way concerned with whether or how a body may come into flame spontaneously. Spontaneous human combustion is an entirely different matter (which is why the articles should not be merged). SHC is not caused by the wick effect nor is it always supposed to involve the wick effect. Note that in this article none on the examples involve spontaneous combustion except possibly the last Michael Faherty example which is highly controversial. That a human body can burn by the wick effect is discussed in many reliable sources although the exact phrase "wick effect" is often not used, possibly in an attempt to avoid confusion, but unfortunately "spontaneous human combustion" is often mentioned in such articles, usually to discount the "spontaneous" aspect.[32][33][34] Thincat (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Improperly Nominated; and for no appearent reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.212.247 (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With no clear !vote moving to keep, the positions are divided between delete and a mix of alternatives (draftify, mere, redirect, with no preference emerging there) that still include removing the original article. Someone might attempt those alternatives, but with no one fighting to keep, this is one to delete. No pointing in a third relisting for something this clearly on its way to removal. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loonatheworld[edit]

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

This tour isn't generally notable. Magmamatt opposed redirecting to the article about the band itself, so now deletion is the only course. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, South Korea, and United States of America. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any indication on why you believe this tour to be "not generally notable"? I see articles specifically about the tour in NME (this and others), but also in e.g. La Republica[35]. A merge to the band article may be better for now (presumably the tour will get additional coverage once the concerts happen), but deletion seems like overkill. Fram (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: As indicated above, I redirected back Loona and put the content into that article but new editors prefer otherwise. I'm not going to edit war over it and I've discussed this issue on my talk page. I wrote what I wrote above to explain the situation so I please re-read that. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you claimed "This tour isn't generally notable.", I asked why and provided sources, so no, it doesn't look like you replied to this. Fram (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Merge to Loona. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Draft:Loonatheworld Tour has already been created on June 1, 2022, what should we do with it? --Hatto (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hatto: There is time to let drafts develop. WP:G13 doesn't occur so long as the draft is edited more than once every six months. We need to wait to have enough sourcing to make a claim of notability. We don't keep articles in the main namespace simply because we can prove they exist. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources for the tour, could revisit once it happens. Could perhaps be a brief subsection in the band's article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since there is already Draft:Loonatheworld Tour, I don't see a problem with deleting it. --Hatto (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Loona#Loonatheworld. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:08, 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 10:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hans-Martin Trepp[edit]

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

I prodded this article on the basis that it was sourced only to a database. Creator deprodded and added another source... which was another database. My interpretation of WP:NOTDIR is that Wikipedia is not a comprehensive directory of Olympians. I feel that articles should have secondary sources, not just databases. —S Marshall T/C 09:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 09:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, my interpretation of the criteria is that something should not have an article solely because the topic is in some kind of a directory. The athlete in question is a winner of an Olympic medal and has other notable achievements. Obviously, most sources would likely be on paper but since the two websites are reliable sources, that should not pose a problem. --Tone 09:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:NHOCKEY, being on a world championship team is enough to meet notability requirements. He played for the Swiss national team at the world championship 4 times, won a gold medal at the European championship according to this site. He is also mentioned in the book Lion in Winter: A Complete Record of Great Britain at the Olympic, World and European Ice Hockey Championships 1910 - 1981 by David S Gordon and Martin C Harris on pages 290-291. That book, as well as his career statistics, which appear to have been above average if not exceptional, could be used to expand the article. Chagropango (talk) 13:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chagropango. Reading his bio suggests quite a lengthy and notable hockey career, even if you discount his Olympic appearence. Multiple national titles, European medals, matches and goals. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Additionally, Trepp was named the greatest centre in Swiss history. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, four "keep" !votes and we've got two new sources: Olympedia, yet another nonselective sports database, and pp290-291 of ISBN 9781527247475 --- an ebook published by Lulu.com (i.e. self-published: they're on WP:SPSLIST).—S Marshall T/C 17:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still, the question is not whether the databases are selective or notselective, the question is whether they are reliable sources. As demonstrated, the subject meets the notability standards and therefore just needs reliable sources. Tone 21:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to disagree with you again, Tone, but when you say "this subject meets the notability standards", I don't think that's actually the case. The notability standard requires reliable sources, plural, and I think this content only has one. To a superficial glance it might look like three, but let's actually drill down and look at them:

Olympedia.com: "Hans-Martin Trepp was a forward who played for EHC Arosa from 1946-59, winning seven consecutive Swiss titles with that side from 1951-57. He played for Switzerland at the World Championships four times, winning three bronze medals in 1950-51 and 1953. He also added six medals at the European Championships, winning gold in 1950, silver in 1951, and bronzes in 1947, 1949, and 1952-53. Statistics are not complete but Trepp was a prolific scorer for Arosa, with 128 goals and 161 points in the last four years of his career in only 49 games. He scored 43 goals in his 39 games at the Olympics and Worlds."
Sports-reference.com: "Hans-Martin Trepp was a forward who played for EHC Arosa from 1946-59, winning seven consecutive Swiss titles with that side from 1951-57. He played for Switzerland at the World Championships four times, winning three bronze medals in 1950-51 and 1953. He also added six medals at the European Championships, winning gold in 1950, silver in 1951, and bronzes in 1947, 1949, and 1952-53. Statistics are not complete but Trepp was a prolific scorer for Arosa, with 128 goals and 161 points in the last four years of his career in only 49 games. He scored 43 goals in his 39 games at the Olympics and Worlds."
Olympics.com: "Hans-Martin Trepp was a forward who played for EHC Arosa from 1946-59, winning seven consecutive Swiss titles with that side from 1951-57. He played for Switzerland at the World Championships four times, winning three bronze medals in 1950-51 and 1953. He also added six medals at the European Championships, winning gold in 1950, silver in 1951, and bronzes in 1947, 1949, and 1952-53. Statistics are not complete but Trepp was a prolific scorer for Arosa, with 128 goals and 161 points in the last four years of his career in only 49 games. He scored 43 goals in his 39 games at the Olympics and Worlds."

All three sites claim copyright, but looking at their copyright pages I think their data is actually compiled by the OlyMADmen, who are the people whose names are listed here. In other words, I'm afraid we aren't looking at three separate sources. We're looking at three copies of one source.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. If we are nominating the greatest players of all time, then things are getting ridiculous. The system is broken. St Anselm (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NHOCKEY, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with significant sources such as these[36][37]. Prior to looking for sources, my WP:COMMONSENSE just screamed that there was every indication that this 50's era individual from a non-english speaking country where Ice Hockey is massively popular was notable as he was one of the best players of one of the best national teams of his era. Even 16-years after his death, the Calgary Herald stated "Bibi Torrianai and Hans-Martin Trepp are still houshold names in European hockey." Alvaldi (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those "significant sources" do look quite a lot like WP:MILL coverage in the back pages of German local newspapers to me.—S Marshall T/C 01:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MILL is an essay and has no power here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NHOCKEY. Rlendog (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to NERO International. Selectively, but how much is up to editors (a few paragraphs or a few sentences...). Sandstein 09:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Ivey[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. None of the sources in the article are independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the article's subject. I did a thorough WP:BEFORE and there were a few trivial mentions in Google Books and a few articles describing the legal ownership of NERO, I could find nothing that would support notability for the subject. As for the sources in the article, not a single one supports notability:

An obituary - Given that obituaries are typically written by surviving family members, it is not an independent source.

This NEROtics interview is made by NERO, which is associated with Ivey. Not an independent source.

This source is behind a paywall but I was able to find it on Newspapers.com and made a clipping of it here and continued here. Ivey is mentioned in the second link and quotes him but the article is about NERO and the mention of him is trivial coverage. It does take two sentence to describe him briefly, but it is still trivial coverage, mentioned in passing.

This biography of him is from "the LARPy awards" from when he was one of their judges. Not an independent source.

This NEROtics interview is another NERO paper which is associated with Ivey. Not an independent source.

This Philiadephia Inquirer article is reliable but trivial. It's about NERO and literally the only thing it says about Ivey is "Started in 1988 by Ford Ivey in Boston, Mass..." trivial coverage.

Images from first NERO event is from NERO and thus not independent, but also is just a collection of images, nothing useful can be sourced from this.

Dragon Magazine has an article about NERO on page 46 but doesn't mention Ivey in any way, even in passing.

Ravenholt Timeline and History is a NERO page and thus not independent, but also doesn't mention Ivey in any way, even in passing.

Who's who in NERO is from NERO itself and thus not independent, but also is just lists his name and title and is trivial coverage.

LARPHack is a blog, but reliability of the source aside it's still a trivial mention and all it says about Ivey is "Lead by Ford Ivey, the progenitor and current holder of the NERO Trademark..." the article is about NERO, not Ivey in any way. Trivial coverage.

Osiris Sanction is a site for a game created by Ivey. Not an independent source and even in that context only mentions him in passing. Trivial coverage.

Legacy Game Systems - Our team is a source listing him as the founder of Legacy Game Systems, making it a non-independent source.

The article seems to be going for an WP:INHERITED notability from NERO, but as notability is not inherited, founding NERO does not make him notable just because NERO itself is notable. Aoidh (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Hawaii. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to NERO International where the subject is mentioned, I can imagine a section on "Members of note" or such. Will need of course abbreviation. WP:NBIO is not met, rule of thumb - no indepenent source names him in their heading, WP:SIGCOV is not met. Overall, much of the article is cobbled from mentions in passing, with WP:OR being an issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I have with merging or creating such a section in the NERO article is that when you take WP:BALANCING into consideration, anything above a passing mention (which already exists in the article, and is all that exists in reliable sources) is undue and disproportionate to coverage by reliable sources. There's really nothing worth merging that would be proportionate to what reliable sources cover, and expanding such a section in the NERO article would place undue emphasis on an aspect of NERO that reliable sources barely mention, when they do mention it at all. - Aoidh (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It could always just be redirected then, rather than full deletion. That way, if sources turn up in the future, it can be restored and improved. BOZ (talk) 10:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

mergeAs I'm reading the timeline, NEROtics started well after Ivey was out of NERO. I'd say that's independent enough and a source of detailed information. The obit is enough to write the basics and the brief mentions are enough to justify a paragraph on him in the main article. But yeah, doesn't reach WP:N no matter how hard I try... Hobit (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a magazine for a game was independent of the person who made the game (in no way is that in any way independent by any definition, the only reason he was featured was because he founded the game, which is a strong connection thus per WP:GNG not independent) both of those are still interviews. Being an interview with Ford Ivey means it’s not independent of Ford Ivey; being that the NERO publication interviewed the founder of NERO specifically because he founded NERO means it’s also not independent, but even if it were the BBC and had no connection, the interview aspect still means it’s not independent. There's nothing to merge. - Aoidh (talk) 18:18, 3 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 Devolved, reserved and excepted matters#List of devolved matters. The one "keep" makes no sense, and the rest is split between delete and merge. Redirection is a compromise, as it allows editors to decide through the editorial process what if anything to merge from the history. Sandstein 08:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of devolved matters in Wales[edit]

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

A WP:CONTENTFORK that should be redirected to Devolved, reserved and excepted matters. The only information that is not already included there is the list of national institutions, which is a poor fit for both articles, and the tax section, which could be moved into the other article. This, that and the other (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. This, that and the other (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Peter Ormond 💬 13:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's a content fork. GoodDay (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's a page on devolved powers of the Senedd of Wales Titus Gold (talk) 14:05, 28 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!} 06:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Devolved, reserved and excepted matters#List of devolved matters: As the nominator rightly says, there is some information (namely, concerning taxes) that can be included in the article on devolved matters. I am not at all swayed by the above WP:BUTITEXISTS argument for keeping the content fork. House Blaster^talk 00:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wales being a country is reason enough to keep the page. There is a completely different devolution settlement with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I see that Wales and Scotland have even been lumped together under the same heading in Devolved, reserved and excepted matters, which is quite poor. If this page is to be merged, Wales and Scotland should at least have separate headings. Titus Gold (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Devolved, reserved and excepted matters#List of devolved matters per Houseblaster, possibly with separate headings for Scotland and Wales as Titus Gold suggests. Llwyld (talk) 09:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 00:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Tin Bots[edit]

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

Non-notable. The article lacks any refs at all; searching online shows the blog The Opinionated Gamers, The Dice Tower, a podcast considered to be marginally reliable or generally unreliable and doesn't show GNG usually, and a two word mention here. I am unconvinced that this meets GNG at all; none of the current refs are significant, reliable, independent, hence listing at this AfD. VickKiang (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify per nom. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yair Lev[edit]

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

Lengthy and detailed BLP of a filmmaker entirely lacking in useful sources. The few sources we have verify specific details only. The he.wiki article does not offer any better sourcing. The subject is plausibly notable so normally I would send to draft, however because of the large NPP backlog it is too late to do that without a determination at AfD (the article was created in February). The outcome I am looking for is to draftify. Mccapra (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Israel. Mccapra (talk) 06:09, 17 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!} 06:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Scattered hits in English, this one in Haretz [38], that's about the best one. Might be better Hebrew-language sources Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pigeon Roost Station, Indiana[edit]

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

This seems to be a fantasy of GNIS, now inexplicable since they cleaned up a lot of entries in the past few years. But the fact remains that the name doesn't show up on the topos until the reformatting circa 2013, which is never a good sign. What does show up before that is the Pigeon Roost memorial and adjacent cemetery. All evidence is that the Pigeon Roost settlement was the only thing here, and that there never was a separate "station" settlement. If someone can come up with a history of Pigeon Roost beyond the massacre, it should have an article, but this one should be deleted outright. Mangoe (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This community is only notable at the local level. TH1980 (talk) 02:51, 2 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!} 04:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Chemy[edit]

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

The article is based on posts from the forum, the novella and the website where the photo is posted. Furthermore, this person's name has been arbitrarily changed to "Piotr" although sources state "Peter". I have not been able to find any information about this person in Polish sources. "Chemy" is certainly not a Polish name, it is probably spelled incorrectly. Is a common murderer notable enough to have a Wikipedia article? Marcelus (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although 'novella' is a bit harsh: it's a memoir of an officer directly involved with the execution. However, it seems the author was assigned to Landsberg only after the trial had already concluded, so the story of the murders might just be a rumour amongst the soldiers (most of which wouldn't have spoken German or Polish).

In any case, it's not an academic source and it's not cited directly. ErfeoM (talk) 10:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a notable story/person. 38.73.253.217 (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion relative to Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Deletion policy is not present. For example, per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. If an article has no sources in it, this does not automatically default to the topic being non-notable. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. No prejudice against speedy renomination with a valid rationale for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnasura[edit]

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

Unsourced for a long time. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:29, 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 06:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Night of Swiss Football[edit]

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

Content in this article is already covered more in depth in Swiss Footballer of the Year, content is also out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idiosincrático (talk • contribs) 06:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Football, and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable and unclear what it actually is; not even worth a redirect I don't think? Giant Snowman 17:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant because we have Swiss Footballer of the Year. I agree with GS and also don't see the point in redirecting. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the nom and above. Most of the content covered here is covered already at Swiss Footballer of the Year. Fats40boy11 (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Briya Philip[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:26, 31 July 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) 04:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. W C M_email 07:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Briyanna Philip[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:22, 31 July 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) 04:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. W C M_email 07:43, 1 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 Saskatoon Public Schools. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Online Learning Secondary[edit]

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

PROD tag removed. Rationale for deletion: All sources cited in the article are either primary, non-independent or unreliable sources. WP:Before shows little coverage outside of what has already been cited. Fails WP:GNG. Dps04 (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Canada. Dps04 (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - AFAIK, the article creator isn't allowed to remove a PROD, which means you could just restore it. 174.212.212.9 (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can contest a PROD, including an article's creator. See WP:PROD: Any editor (including the article's creator or the file's uploader) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD. --Dps04 (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saskatoon Public Schools as WP:ATD. Jumpytoo Talk 06:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. I speedy deleted the article per G7 at the request of the sole author of the article. MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kreheľ[edit]

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

This surname is not common enough to be notable, nor are there multiple notable people with the surname that it could be made into a disambiguation page. SparklingSnail (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Based on the conclusion from the discussion on names and surnames, it doesn't look like a name being common or not is a factor when determining notability, but rather whether the name has a significant history. If this name were just etymology it would be a delete, but since there is documentation of the history of the name, there may be more to the history of the name. A search on the Slovak Wikipedia returns four Krehels- Lukas Krehel (musician), Marek Krehel (priest), Radomir Krehel (musician), and Oleh Krehel (professor) none of whom have their own Wikipedia page. There is a Slovak version of the page (which I linked to the English page) that appears almost identical in Slovak, but which appears to contain some statistics on the incidence of the name in Slovakia. I think that if one were to do a lot of research in Slovak source material one could probably prove that the name has significant history, so it seems okay to leave it for the eventuality that someone wants to do that research or in case some Krehel's become more notable or already notable Krehel's have pages made about them. Chagropango (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chagropango: Look You the page now. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice idea, but are there any sources that show a credible link between the names Krehel and Krechel? Kregel is definitely from a different etymological root. Chagropango (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chagropango: Slovenian H is reading as German "CH" (both IPA /x/). Kregel is removed. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Opposite, the current site is a benefit to people. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have speedy deleted the article at the request of the author, Dušan Kreheľ. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yangzhou Xinhua High School[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NORG, ref 1 reads like a press release, although I cannot find markings noting that it is. Ref 2, 4, and 6 are not independent (see comment below). Ref 3 is a 525 page book that mentions the school three times from what I can see, probably passing mentions. ~~Further reading section consists of what I think is studies conducted by the school.~~ (Google search returned no additional results that are reliable. zh-wiki article does not seem to have any useful citations that may contribute to notability. Justi yaya 03:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and China. Justi yaya 03:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whoops didn't notice the PROD contest by Cunard (and probably wouldn't have nominated if I did). The prod has similar sources in the article. Looking over the papers (further reading section) again, I've realized I've confused the school with another one located in the same area, but I would argue that the citations still either falls under passing coverage, as it studies the current situation of girls' physical education or Chinese teaching in the school or is a primary source and as such cannot contribute to WP:GNG. Else an argument can also be made for WP:AUD as the intended audience are all local except citation one which as previously noted sounds like a press release. Justi yaya 04:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Thank you for the ping, Justiyaya (talk · contribs).
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools says:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
Analysis
Yangzhou Xinhua High School is a non-profit educational organization, so the guideline says the school is notable even if it meets the the general notability guideline but not the the notability guidelines for organizations. This means there is no requirement for the school to meet WP:AUD which applies only to companies, organizations, and for-profit educational organizations. Regarding the academic research done into the school's physical education and students' performance in Chinese reading, I consider those sources to be about the school's pedagogy so contribute to establishing notability.
One journal article (Cao & Xu 2017) is from people affiliated with Yangzhou University which is independent of this high school. The second academic article (Cai 2019) does not have an affiliation but it is likely the author is not affiliated with the school given how negative his abstract is ("the students in this school have a weak awareness of developing their own logical thinking in reading and learning, and the teachers' awareness of improving their own logical thinking is weak").
Sources
1. Cao, Yu 曹瑜; Xu, Yuanyu 徐元玉 (2017). "扬州市新华中学女生体育课现状调查及对策研究" [Investigation and Countermeasures of the Current Situation of Girls' Physical Education in Yangzhou Xinhua High School]. 文体用品与科技 [Culture & Sports Utensils And Technology Journal Publisher] (in Chinese) (12). Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via Cqvip.
  The research was done by people from the School of Physical Education at Yangzhou University, which is independent of Yangzhou Xinhua High School.
  The abstract notes: "An in-depth investigation of the current situation of girls' physical education in Yangzhou Xinhua High School and interviews with high school physical education teachers were conducted to indicate the level of participation of high school girls in the classroom and the current situation of school teaching, and put forward countermeasures and suggestions for improvement in response to this phenomenon."
2. Cai, Tiantian 蔡甜田 (2019). "扬州市新华中学语文阅读教学中学生逻辑思维发展与提升研究" [Research on the Development and Improvement of Students' Logical Thinking in Chinese Reading Teaching in Yangzhou Xinhua High School] (in Chinese). CNKI. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25.
  The abstract notes from Google Translate: "I conducted a field investigation and visit to the Xinhua High School in Xinhua City, and found that the students in this school have a weak awareness of developing their own logical thinking in reading and learning, and the teachers' awareness of improving their own logical thinking is weak. Therefore, the author analyzes and summarizes the reasons for the lack of students' logical thinking ability in reading teaching, and then proposes solutions."
3. "江苏省扬州市新华中学" [Yangzhou Xinhua High School, Jiangsu Province] (in Chinese). China National Radio. 中国广播网教育频道. 2012-03-14. Archived from the original on 2022-07-25. Retrieved 2022-07-25.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Yangzhou Xinhua High School was founded in 1926. In 1995, it moved from the palace next to Wenchang Pavilion in the old city to a new location. The new campus is located in the center of Yangzhou New City, covering an area of 105 acres. The school currently has 57 classes and more than 3,000 teachers and students. In 1999, the school was recognized as a key high school in Jiangsu Province. In 2006, the school was established as a four-star high school in Jiangsu Province."
4. Wang, Ningning 王宁宁 (2017). 近代扬州文人群体研究（1840－1945） [The Study of Literati in Modern Yangzhou (1840–1845)] (in Chinese). Beijing: Social Sciences Literature Press. p. 220. ISBN 978-7-5201-0519-4. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via Google Books.
  The book provides a few sentences of coverage. The book notes: "... 文人蒋贞金回扬参与创办私立扬州中学(新华中学前身)和扬州国学专修学校,从事教育工作数十年。 1926 年,私立扬州中学成立,胡显伯、伯龄、戴天球、蒋太华、唐寿、陈达、周中骅等七人任该校校董。"
  From Google Translate: "... Literati Jiang Zhenjin Huiyang participated in the establishment of private Yangzhou High School (the predecessor of Xinhua High School) and Yangzhou Sinology Specialized School, and has been engaged in education for decades. In 1926, the private Yangzhou High School was established, and seven people, including Hu Xianbo, Bo Ling, Dai Tianqiu, Jiang Taihua, Tang Shou, Chen Da, and Zhou Zhonghua, served as the school's directors."
5. Wang, Jinxiang 王金祥 (2008). 扬州城老街巷 [Old Streets and Alleys of Yangzhou City] (in Chinese). Yangzhou: 广陵书社. pp. 62, 68, 82. ISBN 978-7-8069-4262-8. Retrieved 2022-07-25 – via Google Books.
  The book notes on page 62: "东侧中段是扬州新华中学院墙。解放前新华中学校名为私立扬州中学,此处原名皇宫,是曹寅的官邸。上世纪 90 年代搬迁新华中学, ..."
  From Google Translate: "The middle section of the east side is the wall of Yangzhou Xinhua High School. Before liberation, Xinhua High School was called Private Yangzhou High School, which was formerly known as the Imperial Palace and was the official residence of Cao Yin. Xinhua High School was relocated in the 1990s,..."
  The book notes on page 68: "1949 年 5 月,平民、江、同仁中学合并为私立集美中学, 1951 年 1 月私立集美中学和私立扬州中学合并为私立新华中学,校址就设在皇宫内。中山纪念堂成为新华中学的小会堂和教师办公室。上世纪 50 年代,在新华中学门前设立了皇宮菜场, 1958 年在菜场处砌了 ..."
  From Google Translate: "In May 1949, Pingmin, Jiang and Tongren High Schools merged into private Jimei High School. In January 1951, Private Jimei High School and Private Yangzhou High School merged into Private Xinhua High School, which was located in the palace. Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall became the small hall and teacher's office of Xinhua High School. In the 1950s, the Imperial Palace Market was set up in front of the Xinhua High School, and in 1958, a..."
  The book notes on page 82: "上世纪扬州市新华中学学生宿舍曾在中小街中段西侧。街西侧至今变化甚微。"
  From Google Translate: "The student dormitory of Yangzhou Xinhua High School used to be on the west side of the middle section of Zhongxiao Street in the last century. Little has changed on the west side of the street."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yangzhou Xinhua High School (simplified Chinese: 扬州市新华中学; traditional Chinese: 揚州市新華中學) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Thanks for pointing the part in WP:NSCHOOL out, I didn't notice that. I think an argument for COI can be made for source three based on its promotional tone. (from google translate the article includes) "More than 80 years of brilliance have created the Xinhua spirit of 'unity and hard work, hard work, truth-seeking and innovation, and scientific development'" really stands out as being a press release or somehow affiliated with the school. I don't think four or five provides significant coverage given the context, both being books that only contains 2-3 mentions of the subject. 1/2 are quite convincing in terms of GNG given the argument by Jumpytoo and Cunard though. Justi yaya 06:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just googled it and the third source mentioned above seems to be taken from the school's website, with promotional tone. So there may be a conflict of interest. -- Ib 💬 08:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding this. I am striking the third source. Cunard (talk) 08:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunards sources. I don't have access to the full text of the journal articles, but I doubt that articles that solely focus on the school learning ability would not also have backgrounder information about the school, which would be secondary and sufficient for WP:GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 05:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources given above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's analysis, especially source 1. Also good to be cognizant that us English speakers will naturally have trouble finding Chinese-language sources to establish notability, which to me suggests the relevance of WP:NPOSSIBLE (editors should consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any). Ovinus (talk) 23:37, 4 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!} 04:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Road of Hope in Color[edit]

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

I cannot find any independent significant coverage. The only sources are promotional material related to the art exhibition tour in 2011. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I searched in English and Spanish and couldn't find any new sources that would build the article up to WP:GNG. I was not able to confirm in any other language, but I don't see any reason to believe there's something hiding. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per consensus of !voters. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Goya[edit]

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

From a skim read, on the surface there is a reasonably well written BLP, however it only has a single citation; to a 5 page autobiographical CD album insert. I've tried to find reliable sources to support some/any of the claims in the article, however the only relevant English language source I could find of relevance was an 2015 interview in the Kyiv Post, which is possibly tagged as an advertisement. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Belgium. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:MUSICBIO a musician may be notable if he has had a single or album on any country's national music chart, has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country, has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.. Billboard magazine from 26 December 1981 shows that he had the bestselling instrumental album in the Finnish market, and that he received a string of gold awards. Multiple sources such as this one indicate that he was indeed the conductor of the Eurovision orchestra for at least 2 years. This source also documents a number of his media appearances. Chagropango (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Author Keep Billboard from Feb 5 1977 substantiates the awarding of a gold sales certification in the Netherlands. Though almost totally forgotten today (at least in the Anglophone world), Goya was successful forty years ago, and WP:NTEMP. Chubbles (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep: Has an entry in some history book about Muzak [39] and a ProQuest search pulls up some news and magazine articles that can certainly be used to prove his notability (although he can't be confused with the painter of a similar name). Why? I Ask (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 02:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AM Television[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. The first 5 citations are from blogs, ref no 6 is WP:PRIMARY. No WP:SECONDARY, WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG also. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 01:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Organizations, and India. _{- Signed by}NeverTry4Me ^Talk 01:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I found this but it appears to be a passing mention. This seems to be a case of just because the films a company makes are notable, doesn't mean the company is notable. Since there is almost nothing to say about this company, this page is basically a directory of films made by the company, so this page probably doesn't need to exist as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Chagropango (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 14:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iddris Sandu[edit]

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

WP:NOTRESUME. The article relies too much for reference on primary sources because there aren't independent secondary sources; the dude is interviewed frequently (that's what the NYT citation and Surface citations are, for example) but lacks the significant coverage in third-party sources normally required for these kinds of articles. On top of it, the article is written to exalt the subject (one commenter wrote that it was "hagiographic", which I might steal), and isn't encyclopedic; there's no clear path to improving it. FalconK (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ghana. FalconK (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CassiJevenn (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say that? FalconK (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's the subject of 3 independent articles. Easily satisfies WP:3REFS-

– Sean Brunnock (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT source relies pretty much entirely on interviewing the subject and is a human interest story with insufficient depth to support a BLP. The Wired source lacks independence because it relies almost entirely on interviewing the subject for its content. Same story with CNBC. The sourcing requirement to establish notability is such that we need sources that wrote about someone, not sources that wrote what that someone said. FalconK (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're not interviews. Interviews follow a Q&A format. They're profiles consisting mainly of biographical information with just a few quotes by the subject. Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG: lack of independent coverage. There is a lot of easy-to-find sources out there, but all of them say the same thing, and are either interviews of the article's subject, or based on these interviews. Having this in mind, it's easy to see why all the articles repeat the same statements, and never say anything that doesn't correspond to what Iddris Sandu and the people he works with have said. BilletsMauves^€500 09:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The high profile sources may be based largely on interviews, but there's a quite a few of them. There are also dozens of mid-level sources documenting various ventures and projects he's been involved in. I also found this award that he received. It seems to be a fairly notable award. He was also the keynote speaker at an recent conference organized by Block, Inc.. Even if there is some weakness in the individual instances of proof of notability, the large and diverse volume of media coverage as well as his well documented connections to numerous celebrities points toward clear notability in my opinion. Chagropango (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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