< March 21	March 23 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Well analyzed. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Betsy Newmark[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Betsy Newmark

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

Newmark seems to be not noteable, as there is only 1 separate source (ie that she did not have a hand in) that is used in the article. It currently has been vandalized by an IP, but if you look at before the IP came along (here) it's very much so a short, poorly-sourced article. Isro! (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though the Washington Post article would have briefly given her some sort of profile, I can't find any evidence of anything else online about her. She's been active in the internet age, on the internet, so it's not as if we'd expect lots of (solely) offine sources. Sionk (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I find her quoted extensively on the New York Times "Opinionator" blog example other example. She was also one of the "opinion experts" queried for dozens of National Journal articles (example: A Direct Hit Or A Glancing Blow On Nominees? National Journal: Web Edition Articles (USA). February 5, 2009. Accessed March 18, 2022. - behind EBSCO paywall). She is mentioned in an academic article about "PC speech" (Kitrosser, H., 2016. Free speech, higher education, and the PC narrative. Minn. L. Rev., 101, p.1987.) So during her time she was considered an influential right-wing blogger. But I don't find anything substantially about her. Lamona (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The WaPo article probably counts for something, but it doesn't get her across the notability threshold on its own, particularly since it's mostly just the result of an interview. The other sources available, which seem to be little more than single-sentence passing mentions or quotes, don't move the needle for me: they clearly aren't significant coverage for purposes of the GNG, and I feel that the "regarded as an important figure" or "won significant critical attention" prongs of WP:NAUTHOR require a bit more than the occasional quotation. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Extraodinary Writ. Mentions in NYT blogs aren't enough to make someone an important figure. Besides the NYT blogs, the WP article, and a few mentions in local newspapers, I'm not seeing any significant coverage. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meghalaya Rural Livelihoods Society[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:NORG. (t · c) buidhe 16:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 16:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 16:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 16:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google only yielded four results, all of which were primary. No coverage or significance per nom; very likely not notable. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 01:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability, topic fails NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As all above voters mentioned, they lack of independent and reliable references. Brian O'Conner 07:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2010–11 Chamois Niortais F.C. season[edit]

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

Team was not in a professional division this season, per Wikipedia:NSEASONS. Sakiv (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sakiv (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. French 3rd isn't an FPL. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Davy Van Baelen[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Relatively modern BLP article with no secondary sources. No coverage. Single ext link doesn't prove notability. scope_creep^Talk 22:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Belgium. Shellwood (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to find any significant coverage of him. Dougal18 (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Added an interview on a darts website of when he got his 2018 tour card and a report from the PDC on the win, but still fails notability and there's no SIGCOV. Maybe there's some write up in a Belgian paper that's not in English? BBQboffin (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 22:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christie Clark[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Sources do not appear reliable for a biography of a living person. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep She has quite an extended career but I can't see much in the way of coverage. There is nothing coming up What is there at the moment is a clickbait cite ref (an interview) and social media. No extended secondary coverage is present. scope_creep^Talk 22:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1643 episodes of anything is more than enough to meet WP:NACTOR. KidAd • SPEAK 00:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above. Weird deletion nomination. Of course a soap star meets notability for entertainer. And we don't judge based on present sources. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is coverage focused on her, including biographical coverage, available via Proquest, e.g.
- "Christie Clark wants a life as solid as her career", Koltnow, Barry. Chicago Tribune, 04 Feb 1993: 4
- "Soap teens proceed with great caution on the subject of sexual relationships TV: `Days of Our Lives' co-stars model responsible behavior." OKIKAWA, LISA; STEPHANIE BALLWEG, Orange County Register 23 May 1993: g09 (abstract)
- "Happy to be back in Carrie's shoes: Clark returns to character that's grown older, wilder" NOVAAKOVICH, LILANA. The Province 11 Mar 1994: B17 (also published in Toronto Star, 07 Mar 1994)
- "Clark grows up with `Days' and dreams", Reichardt, Nancy M., Austin American Statesman 19 Nov 1995: 46
- "Clark wants to walk on wild side" Lilana Novakovich, Special to The Journal. Edmonton Journal 16 June 1996: C.2
- "DOL's Christie Clark has grown up on TV", Lilana Novakovich. The Record; Kitchener, Ont. 31 July 1998: A14.
Reviews for Children of the Corn II include: "Horrors! A Stalker Sequel" Terry Kelleher, Newsday, 30 Jan 1993: 22; "`Children of the Corn II' another failure in its field" Strauss, Bob. Star Tribune 03 Feb 1993: 08E (abstract); "Children of the Corn II' beats original" Price, Michael H., Austin American Statesman, 29 Jan 1993: 8, ("Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice Stars: Terence Knox, Paul Scherrer, Rosalind Allen, Christie Clark [...] Knox and Scherrer carry the key roles ably, with sharp support from Rosalind Allen and Christie Clark as their respective romantic interests"); "'Children of the Corn II' / Wandering in Nebraska in Search of Plot", JOE BOB BRIGGS, San Francisco Chronicle, 03 Oct 1993: 32 (abstract includes commentary about Clark), so Keep per WP:GNG/WP:NACTOR. Beccaynr (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Beccaynr. It's too bad that many nominators (or voters) don't do a WP:BEFORE. Often, there will multiple reliable sources out there (however, sometimes behind paywalls). GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per accurate reasoning by above Keep voters. Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Mills[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MN. Basically promo. PepperBeast (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just staring in awe at the tags from up to 13 years ago on this one. Having said that, session musicians are tough to pin down sometimes, but usually have some sort of footprint on the web. I can't find much of anything on this fellow. I'd love to have his guitar collection, but delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything on this player at all. scope_creep^Talk 20:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it appears that not even his associated acts are notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has been tagged for years, nothing notable found or proven. doktorb _words^deeds 19:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Wall. Sandstein 12:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What Shall We Do Now?[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Relevant material should be merged into The Wall Tour (1980–1981) and the page should be redirected to the same target. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2005-10 ✗ deleted

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Wall, as an abandoned track for the album. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Wall. Fails WP:NSONG but can be redirected to the album for which it was originally produced. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is enough concern that these aren't hoaxes that a deletion would not make sense given sources have been identified for some. If there are particular articles that remain problematic, they can be nominated for individual consideration. Star Mississippi 14:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bardo Corsi[edit]

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

Suspected hoaxes; see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive333#House_of_Corsi_hoaxing. Sources do not mention the people at all. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcos Corsi and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gislaine Corsi, hoaxes by the same editor. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't see the text of the other deleted Corsi articles, but I don't think this one is fake. L'araldo almanacco nobiliare del napoletano (1878) mentions a Bardo Corsi who was made Marquess of Caiazzo in 1623. There is also an article (which I can't access) about the Corsi family and artistic patronage in the 1985 volume of I Tatti Studies, published by the Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies. Links at https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/L_araldo_almanacco_nobiliare_del_napolet/2dBMC8lpxdMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Bardo+Corsi+Caiazzo&pg=PA356&printsec=frontcover and https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/I_Tatti_Studies/wS_rAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Bardo+Corsi+Caiazzo&dq=Bardo+Corsi+Caiazzo&printsec=frontcover Atchom (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Another more recent source: "Bardo di Giovanni Corsi bought the viceroyal feud of Caiazzo, now a town in the Province of Caserta, becoming its marchese." In Vincenzo Sorrentino, A Patron Family Between Renaissance Florence, Rome, and Naples: The Del Riccio in the Shadow of Michelangelo (2022). Atchom (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  And another mention in The Journal of European Economic History (1998): "Giovanni di Iacopo Corsi had been named to the Senate and his brother Bardo had obtained the title of Marchese di Caiazzo." Definitely not a hoax. Atchom (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - - @Atchom: Most of the Corsi articles were made and/or edited by a known hoaxster. So if they are real, then WP:TNT may be in order. I just applied WP:DUCK since everything else by the same editor was a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Royalty and nobility. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now at least and then establish if individual articles are notable. This book about Jacopo Peri published by Harvard University Press extensively talks about Jacopo Corsi and others in the Corsi family. The following sources also mention Jacopo: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] It doesn't look like a hoax to me but some listed may not meet notability - this can probably be sorted out later. Feel a bit bad for the guy accused of hoaxing. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does trouble me that the user was blocked for what seems to be at worst an excess of zeal in writing about more recent members of that particular family (and being an ESL speaker). Atchom (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. Also, I hadn't noticed that this was a collective nomination of several articles. The article on Jacopo Corsi was created in 2005 and has an entry in Britannica... The more I look into this the more I think the blocked editor wasn't a hoaxster... Atchom (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OGLE-2007-BLG-368L[edit]

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. The only coverage is the discovery and a couple of mentions in papers about other stars. If there's nothing more to say after a decade, it probably isn't notable. Lithopsian (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it doesn't appear to satisfy WP:NASTRO. The object is on SIMBAD as MOA 2007-BLG-308, but I only find a few brief mentions beyond the discovery paper. Praemonitus (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Praemonitus. Artem.G (talk) 09:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "Keep" !votes which do not comply with our policies carry little weight. Bishonen | tålk 18:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chaiti Narula[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Fails WP:N; won a non-notable award from an advertising company. PROD was successful but undeleted upon request of the creator. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, News media, and Television. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:It’s a notable award. ENBA is not from an advertising company . It follows a due process with distinguished jury involved from different professionals. The jury has awarded this.

CN is one of the top journalists at India Today which is one of the top English channels in India. Gocrazy69 (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW you are also famous for deleting this article now... just saw it show up in an article online. Gocrazy69 (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please show how the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALIST by demonstrating significant coverage of her (not by her) in reliable sources. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, Can you specifically clarify where the page goes against WP:GNG or Wikipedia:JOURNALIST ?

I am sorry for my English. संन्यासी (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep संन्यासी (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, also fails WP:JOURNALIST subject-specific notability. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 20:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! I am coming across this SNG for the first time. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ — Duplicate vote: संन्यासी (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. 04:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of meeting WP:JOURNALIST. Lacks coverage from independent and reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG guidelines. Ab207 (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with Journalists is that other Journalists rarely cover each other (also because of competitive reasons). But nonetheless the person in question is one of the top English anchors in India. Trying to share more verified sources. Gocrazy69 (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The said Journalist is a known Journalist, I don't understand this sudden purge as the article has been there for 5-6 years. Will share some of her known articles and coverage. Chimpgreen (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)— Chimpgreen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:JOURNALIST. ––FormalDude talk 09:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She is a known journalist and millions have watched her on mainstream media. With India today having viewership of millions can you explain how it doesn't meet the standards? This sudden deletion of famous media journalist in India is very concerning for free speech. We aren't sure as to what is happening. Would be great if you could explain. I think reaching millions of users meet the standards set by Wikipidea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvp2_gIWSSE&ab_channel=IndiaToday Chimpgreen (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)— Chimpgreen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You should add your vote to keep Gocrazy69 (talk) 05:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no free speech at Wikipedia and our notability guidelines exist at WP:GNG as well as WP:NJOURNALIST. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 15:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Journalist was featured in a News Talk Show https://omny.fm/shows/roy-green-show/sk-premier-moe-re-opening-roadmap-indian-journalis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:E280:3D52:4C6:317A:35FF:CE6:C1DF (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Sadly, being featured in a News Talk Show is not a claim to wiki-notability — GNG or NJOURNALIST. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... Prime time presenter, hosted on show and according to a notable peer has brought some awareness of Indian art. Whispyhistory (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
according to a notable peer has brought some awareness of Indian art. - Citations? TrangaBellam (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" She has widely reported globally. How can reporters be covered by other media houses? She is watched by millions everyday on India Today TV. https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/wont-stop-here-to-do-my-job-vir-das-comedian-exclusive-two-indias-video-1879354-2021-11-22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Komdikapiece (talk • contribs) 16:07, 26 March 2022 (UTC) (Editor indef blocked. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST or WP:BASIC. Being a broadcast journalist and appearing on television by virtue of it does not make one meet our notability guidelines. She need independent coverage of her which are not passing mentions. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not outright notable. The appalling behavior by this person on social media does not help in gaining notability. Agletarang (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bishonen | tålk 18:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tuhin Sinha[edit]

If you came here because of Tuhin Sinha's twitter posts, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

AfDs for this article:

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

This is different to the version deleted at AfD, but the sourcing concerns remain as it is unclear that Sinha passes GNG/NAUTHOR/NPOLITICS or other relevant criteria when it comes to significant RS coverage. If deleted, would recommend SALT as this just closed and we don't need to do these monthly. Star Mississippi 15:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (in this version) 4 out of 11 references are links to routine profile pages. Among others, one (news18) is a book excerpt, two (rediff, ToI) are explicit interviews. The two on BJP appointment are press releases (in the previous AfD, I'd noted that HuffPo had credited it to ANI, while Business Standard carried it as IANS). The remaining two, on Birsa Munda book and 'Loyola College Alumnus', are routine book launch announcements with no significant coverage of the subject. Hemantha (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis page is here since 06-07 and covered by multiple RSEsKichupila (talk) 05:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC) — Kichupila (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Most of the sources are unreliable. 2001:4455:364:A800:5DC:1FFF:D6C9:A8C7 (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment note that he is calling for Shirt58 to be doxxed in this tweet. What appalling behavior. wizzito | say hello! 00:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Paid sources, distributed by news agencies. References are unreliable. Angad.uday (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPOL. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:BASIC or any SNGs. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not outright notable. The appalling behavior by this person on social media does not help in gaining notability. Agletarang (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. The subject doesn't pass the notability guidelines as an author per WP:AUTHOR. It aslo fails WP:POLITICIAN. Besides, the content in the page seems to be promotional in nature. _signed,511KeV ^(talk) 18:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Agarwal[edit]

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

The only coverage that can be found is not about this person but about the films they produced; and essentially sums up to a few trivial mentions and interviews. Thus, fails WP:GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there are some name drops in the coverage of films but it's insufficient for WP:GNG or even WP:BASIC. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Nutt[edit]

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

Non-notable fencer, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 00:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 00:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Vaco98 (talk) 03:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to fail GNG and SPORTCRIT Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I've significantly edited the page and added numerous WP:RS. Contributors please note that unsupported comments such as "fails WP:SPORTCRIT", without any supporting reasoning are not helpful to the decision making process here. Relevantly, SPORTCRIT is effectively WP:GNG; and WP:SPORTSPERSON states: A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to meet the GNG. Even before my additions, it was obvious that the page had the potential to pass GNG simply on the fact that Nutt was a national and international champion in his sport; and has received Australia's national honour, the OAM for fencing. Absence of citations is not a reason to delete: it's a reason to improve the page. Please be mindful of WP:ATD. Cabrils (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets gng, [8], [9] along with several others in the article do it for me.Jacona (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage in the SMH source just repeats statements from Nutt, so isn't independent in regards to him, and the ABC source has the same issue. At the moment, I am leaning delete; do you have other sources that you believe are significant and independent? BilledMammal (talk) 02:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - With respect, your assertions regarding the SMH article and the ABC source are not correct. Neither "just repeats statements from Nutt": they both include substantial commentary (ie commentary of substance) from the authors. However, in any event, such an assertion is mischievous and misrepresents WP:RS and WP:GNG. Even if an article "just repeats statements from Nutt" it is still a RS and appropriate for an entry IF "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (see WP:SIGCOV). Further, simply because and article "just repeats statements from Nutt" is irrelevant and bears no logical or rational connection to your suggestion that that some how makes the article "not independent": please see WP:GNG: ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it." There is nothing in the definition that suggests the author's independence is compromised if he "just repeats statements from Nutt".
  Additionally, as I noted above, please see WP:SPORTSPERSON: "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor...ETC".
  
  Notwithstanding these critical points, there are multiple RS here now, including but not limited to: 2x SMH; 1x ABC; 3x The Canberra Times.
  
  Finally, as a matter of common sense, Nutt is not a nobody, he's a world class sportsman (fencer). This is not a page on a mediocre sportsman who, for example, only competed at provincial level and is trying to shoehorn themselves into Wikipedia and prop up their reputation. I hope common sense prevails here. Cabrils (talk) 01:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Interviews are works produced by both the subject and the author. For example, "It’s a mix of physical activity, the love of the sport and the people you get the mix with. I just love it, it’s great fun ... I’ve got plenty of silvers." is not independent of Nutt. Because of this, for the work to count towards WP:GNG, the parts that are not written in collaboration with the subject need to be WP:SIGCOV, and I am not seeing that in the sources above. BilledMammal (talk) 02:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please identify where exactly in WP:SIGCOV what you've suggested here is defined? Thanks Cabrils (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG, not WP:SIGCOV. It isn't enough for the coverage to be significant, it also needs to be reliable, secondary, and independent. BilledMammal (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. So then I understand that that is the definition of WP:GNG, but I still do not see how you can assert that the SMH, ABC and Canberra Times articles fail that? Given the basis of your vote is "leaning to delete", could you please clarify how each of those articles does not meet GNG in your view? Because surely each article is in fact significant, reliable, secondary, and independent. With respect, I can't find any support in the guidelines for your assertion that "for the work to count towards WP:GNG, the parts that are not written in collaboration with the subject need to be WP:SIGCOV". Cabrils (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - (ec) Going over SMH; the article contains five sentences on Nutt. Two of those are direct quotes from Nutt, and must be ignored as direct quotes are not independent. That leaves us three sentences; which tell us that he has competed for thirty years winning several medals, came second in his last competition, and is going to compete in a match on Sunday. This isn't enough to count as significant coverage. The others have the same issue. BilledMammal (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK thanks for clarifying that. However, both points you make are absolutely unsustainable arguments: please see ~~WP:CONTEXT~~WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. That article, along with multiple others, as a whole is undoubtedly SIGCOV in a reliable source. The totality of multiple RS carries weight here. Cabrils (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you mean to link WP:CONTEXT (which discusses wikilinks) or something else? BilledMammal (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry--amended post: I meant WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Cabrils (talk) 12:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you. However, I don't believe that is relevant here; that discusses whether a source is reliable, not whether it is independent. BilledMammal (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        That is my point. That article is authoritative and yet it doesn't discuss the "independent" issue that you have raised-- I refer to it as evidence against your argument. With respect, what you have proposed is a straw man. Cabrils (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        GNG requires that a source has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS only discusses whether a source is reliable, and not whether it is significant or independent. BilledMammal (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not sourcing here that actually constitutes a pass of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more input to see what agreement the existing views have.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cabrils. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@John Pack Lambert: Could you kindly provide some reasoning as to how the current sources do not "actually constitute a pass of GNG"? Thanks. Cabrils (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the sources available in the article alone, I feel that this satisfies the relevant Wikipedia notability guidelines. Canadian Paul 01:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The claim that a source is not significant because it includes quotes from the subject seems silly. Meets GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cabrils. Blakesmith11 (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus seems to be to delete this article, with several editors questioning the significance of the sources provided in the discussion. Draftifying was considered, but the article is only four sentences long and can be easily recreated if the subject becomes notable in the future. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brody Buck[edit]

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

Not drafted to NFL, is on roster of 2022 USFL team that probably does not make anyone notable. No significant coverage, and some of the coverage that is out there is by Fox Sports which owns the league. Mvqr (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, found SIGCOV here and here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those two are local papers covering his college team and his highshcool team. If such local coverage were significant, then nearly every college player in the states would be notable. Significant coverage requires non-local coverage.--Mvqr (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- - NO, locality of coverage is 100% irrelevant. Being local does NOT discount it from being significant. And your statement of "If such local coverage were significant, then nearly every college player in the states would be notable" is false; very few college players (usually the best of the best) ever get coverage to pass GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Maryville Forum profiled seven Bearcat "super seniors" in a series ("Over the course of seven weeks, the Maryville Forum will highlight the seven ‘super seniors’ for Bearcat football who returned for an additional season despite already earning their undergraduate degrees"), hardly selective coverage. This includes coverage of the likes of Alec Tatum, walk on Bailey Pickering. This kind of local coverage is not significant.--Mvqr (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I'll go with an extremely weak keep, as NBIO says "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" and I found two pieces (multiple) that appear to be SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm unsure about the standing of the USFL and I'd like to see some more coverage. I'll watch and see what happens. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@No Great Shaker: See WP:NGRIDIRON for the status of the USFL. Jacona (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That applies to the old USFL of the 1980's, which received a higher level of coverage and had a higher level of competition as they were undercutting the NFL by allowing college prospects to play professionally earlier. The new USFL has yet to meet the NGRIDIRON standard and even if it did Buck has yet to play in a USFL game. GPL93 (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I think that's the best option for now. We get borderline cases but this one is right on the line. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because the local paper decides to provide coverage of all 7 people who have a degree but are still playing football for the local college does not mean all 7 of those people are notable, and nothing else shows notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wasn't able to dig up much but I did find this. I think the sources from BeanieFan barely pass the GNG line. Playing professionally helps, though it is not a determination. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a quick mention in a game report (so not really even about Buck) in Northwest Missouri State's student newspaper. I don't really see how that could be notability-lending. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and the new USFL isn't likely to have enough coverage to lend itself towards presumed notability, at least in the beginning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you support draftify-ing the article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently I wouldn't because I don't think that the chances Buck becoming notable are high. The new USFL probably wouldn't merit an NGRIDIRON pass even if that was still a strong SNG and the fact that all teams are operating and playing in Birmingham, Alabama instead of in their home cities means that coverage from their media markets will likely not be as high. GPL93 (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dondrea Tillman[edit]

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

Not drafted to NFL, is on roster of 2022 USFL team that probably does not make anyone notable. No significant coverage, and some of the coverage that is out there is by Fox Sports which owns the league. Mvqr (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, SIGCOV here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As that was the only coverage I could find, my !vote is Draftify, as he probably will be notable soon, just not right now. If additional sources are found I may change my mind. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Mvqr: Though why was this article nominated at AFD six minutes after creation? I don't think that is acceptable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no time requirement. This article has no hope of notability, this is a player that wasn't drafted by the NFL and who doesn't have anything close to significant coverage which is easily ascertained by searching for his name and seeing just local coverage of his high school and college teams.--Mvqr (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Saying there is "no hope of notability" is ignorant and silly. I believe something like 40-50 ex-XFL players made an NFL roster after the league collapsed. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. Aramehetemadi (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and the new USFL hasn't received the higher level of coverage that the older version has so far. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is unambiguously a hoax. This "famous" person gets no hits at all from web searches, "Eggah" gets lots of hits as a foodstuff, the article was created by a vandalism-only account which also created a vandalism page about a totally different person with, by a remarkable coincidence, a name strikingly similar to this one. (Ege Halac.) JBW (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eggah Halak[edit]

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

This person (from edit) is not notable. I can't find any source on them. Mvqr (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article has been improved since nomination. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 14:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Wotapek[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Johann Wotapek

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

Wotapek was a non-medaling Olympian. He does not meet sports notability guidlines, and I cannot find any significant coverage sources that would lead to his passing GNG. There was a somewhat prominent official in Bohemia in the early 18th-centry name Johan Peter Wotapek von Ritterwald who is what I mainly get as the result of my searched for Johann Wotapek John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A seven-time national champion across two different disciplines, meeting WP:NATH. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Austria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NATH. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:SPORTBASIC: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources". WP:NATH tells us that "significant coverage is likely to exist", however in this case none has been found. –dlthewave ☎ 01:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found this from the Austrian Athletics Federation (drop down of the 1931-45 history tab) and found this quote that appears to be from a 2002 book (pardon the incredibly rough Google translation):
Discus thrower Johann "Schani" Wotapek even made it to captain of the German national team at the suggestion of the German greats. Wotapek, according to Smekal never ever a National Socialist, had to defend himself against this fact after 1945. The doping recipe of the exceptional talent at the time was as follows: "Before every difficult competition, good red wine, three raw eggs, plus a packet of dextrose well stirred and drink 45 minutes before the throws. I've got the strength to stop there."

It's possible that more coverage can be found using his nickname. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- GPL93 thanks very much for this - it was very helpful! Ingratis (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts and GPL93. Multiple national champion in two athletics disciplines. More sources in German could very likely be found. - Darwinek (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he has a whole article in the Wiener Neueste Nachrichten of 20 April 1942 as Schani or Hans Wotapek (added), as well as many other references throughout the 1940s in the Austrian press. Ingratis (talk) 05:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC) the most significant of which I'll also add. Ingratis (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now added content with refs. It is slow to do because there are so many reports of his sporting fixtures to go through in the Austrian press between 1930 and 1950. Ingratis (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Domínguez family[edit]

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

Notability and Verifiability in question. Was already challenged as not passing WP:GNG in 2009 (removed by anon) and was again PROD'ed this year. I've also checked the linked "references" and find that they either don't mention anything about this family and some are selling me services. I could verify some members listed in Prominent exists/ existed but It is very difficult to verify that they all came from this family's lineage (and prove that said lineage is related to their prominence) given that Dominguez is such a common surname in the Philippines. --Lenticel ^(talk) 12:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 12:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 12:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Effectively unsourced. I proded it originally as the current references are woeful. I have done one of these types of articles at Frydag and there tends to be reams of information about the particular family if they are truly prestiguous or considered really important over a long period, for example if they were aristocrats. That kind of information is not present in this article. You would expect sources going back centuries, so much information really that it becomes overwhelming, but its not here. It could be because of the language barrier but the article was created in 2009 and its never really been referenced. scope_creep^Talk 12:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The footnotes here are primary sources (e.g. the self-published websites of individual people in the list) which are not support for notability at all, with absolutely no reliable source coverage about the family shown to establish that they're anywhere near as notable as a family as this article claims. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chino Corporation[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP with most sources given listings and the own website. A WP:BEFORE gave many products. The Banner talk 12:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Japan. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no sufficient WP:RS to show the notability of the article. Aramehetemadi (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a normal company, I cannot see any indications of notability. I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen Kumar Rajbhar[edit]

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

He founded a small company called Skilling You. Does not have significant coverage. Mvqr (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 11:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator, fails WP:GNG. JoyStick101 (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is only one source in the article. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Artislife7 (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is only one source in the article. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Flowingmind (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no information online about him. Fails WP:GNG Angad.uday (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kannai Nambathey[edit]

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

This unreleased film began its shoot in 2019 but lacks independent coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:NFF guidelines. No scheduled release date yet, should be draftified until its release. Source assessment follows. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Ab207
News Today	Announcement of principal photography			✘ No
Sify	Announcement of principal photography			✘ No
Thanthi TV	Announcement of principal photography		Too short	✘ No
Maalaimalar	Announcement of principal photography			✘ No
Silver Screen India	Largely based on quotes from director	? May be		✘ No
TOI	Same as above	~ WP:TOI		✘ No
DT Next	Interview with one of the actors			✘ No
New Indian Express	Announcement			✘ No
NDTV Tamil	Annoucement			✘ No
Instagram post	Instagram post by one of the actors			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

-- Ab207 (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sahar Hashemi#Skinny Candy. ✗plicit 13:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny Candy[edit]

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

I was going to redirect this to its founder, Sahar Hashemi, but it would irritate me if someone else had done that to an article that I had started. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. It looks like there was a little press attention early on, but the brand never really took off. Edwardx (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero hits in GNews, old quotes from newspapers in the 50s and 60s using the term in general in GNewspapers. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sahar Hashemi. My search found a handful of results in Google News and ProQuest, but they mostly are just passing mentions in articles about Hashemi; I could not find anything that would qualify as significant coverage under WP:NCORP. A redirect to Hashemi's article, where the brand is mentioned, seems like a reasonable (and cheap) alternative to deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sahar Hashemi#Skinny Candy. Not enough coverage under WP:NCORP for a stand alone article, but a few sources exist for a mention in the article about the founder. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sahar Hashemi. This single-brand company fails NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Battle of Kharkiv (2022)#Casualties. Black Kite (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yulia Zdanovska[edit]

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

Sad that a promising life was cut short due to war, but she has no notability outside being a victim. She was one of 168 participants in the 20117 European Girls' Mathematical Olympiad, ranking last on the Ukraine team and receiving a silver medal along with 27 other participants, behind the 16 gold medals awarded. Prior to 2022 there is no substantial coverage and coverage in 2022 is limited to her death. Mvqr (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question I don't know how to do this, but shouldn't this also be listed on the deletion sorting page for women? DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough for her own article { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 10:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle of Kharkiv (2022)#Casualties. Not notable, but a plausible search term right now.—S Marshall T/C 10:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I began by redirecting, but it was challenged. However, I don't think a merge is warranted. The battle already has hundreds of dead, including hundreds of dead civilians, and this is expected to rise even more. Many of the victims are profiled in some media around their death. Mvqr (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are indeed, and that's why there are already several civilian names in the article about the battle. They could usefully be moved to the casualties section too. I, er, am distinctly uncomfortable with the overtones of erasing those names completely.—S Marshall T/C 12:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle of Kharkiv (2022)#Casualties. She appears to be a plausible search term and a merge appears supported due to reporting like this, e.g. Evening Standard, Mar. 9, 2022, "Hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians are believed to have already been killed in Ukraine, including maths prodigy Yulia Zdanovska, 21, reportedly killed by Russian shelling in the eastern city of Kharkiv."), Guerre en Ukraine : ils s'appelaient Tetiana, Mykyta, Alisa, Yulia... (France24, Mar. 19, 2022). Beccaynr (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If being singularly profiled as a victim of a larger tragic incident warranted merging or a redirect, we would have such a precedent for every single plane crash and terror attack and natural disaster. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and BIO1E makes it pretty clear that generally only individuals who played a significant role in an event should be discussed beyond a mere mention in the event's article. JoelleJay (talk) 15:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO1E also states, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low profile individuals. Per WP:BLP1E, she 1) appears to be covered only in the context of the single event of her death during the war, 2) she otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, low-profile, so it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article, and 3) it seems too soon to determine the significance of the event, and her role does not appear to be particularly substantial or well-documented to a degree that justifies a separate BLP. Per WP:MERGEREASON, the Battle of Kharkiv (2022)#Casualties has the same scope, there is an overlap, the BLP is unlikely to be expanded within a "reasonable" time (in my opinion as an editor), and perhaps most importantly, a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it, based on the coverage, including as noted above, that highlights and contextualizes her death in reporting on the war. Beccaynr (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I get to "merge" via a different route from Beccaynr, then. The way I would react to JoelleJay's view is to say that the Russian invasion of Ukraine isn't a plane crash or terror attack or natural disaster. It's very unlike incidents of that nature, and it's treated very unlike them in the sources. I'm looking at this in the light of our policy on biographies of living people (which, for the benefit of anyone new to Wikipedia who's reading this discussion, applies to the recently-deceased as well as the currently living), and I know we'd remove the names of innocent bystanders or victims from an article about a fatal incident such as a terror attack; but I see Zdanovska as a war casualty, and I think in the circumstances we honour her by including her name, where there are sources to back that up, rather than by erasing it.—S Marshall T/C 17:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing we erase her name from the battle page, I'm just saying we don't need to have more than the bare minimum biographical info on her, and therefore a merge is unnecessary. I am approaching this as an equivalent to the "prominent casualties" kind of lists that appear on plane crash etc. articles, where non-notable entries just have at most a one-sentence description of why their death was noted. JoelleJay (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hum. In that case would it be fair to characterise your position as more "redirect" than "delete"? Mine is more like "selective merge".—S Marshall T/C 20:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah a redirect would be fine since her name is probably pretty uncommon. I gave a suggestion in my reply to Russ. JoelleJay (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per WP:Redirects are cheap. No sign of reaching the notability required for a standalone article. A sentence about her could be included in a list of (weakly-)notable casualties in the battle article. (It looks like Borys Romanchenko is another such casualty.) There is little enough in the bio stub that I think is academic as to whether we call that a merge or not. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is little enough in the bio stub that I think is academic as to whether we call that a merge or not. Yeah this is exactly my position. It just doesn't seem worth the effort to merge such a small article, especially when there will be even less content in the merge target. I'd say we keep the Terence Tao ref and maybe one other alongside a brief description and call it good. JoelleJay (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In such cases it's not strictly necessary to keep the history under the redirect for attribution purposes; but it's courteous and respectful to do so (particularly if citing references originally found by others).—S Marshall T/C 13:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle of Kharkiv (2022)#Casualties per S Marshall. I don't think we'll have more than a line post-merge, but keeping the history seems better. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 16:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suhotra Swami[edit]

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

All board members of cult ISKCON are not notable. There is no major work done. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. Sources are dependent and connected with ISKCON. Gita Nagari Press is owned by ISKCON. In last AfD, 12 years ago his ISKCON board membership was used to argue and vote keep. (This is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krishna Dharma) Venkat TL (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Venkat TL (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Dāsānudāsa (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Angad.uday (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Hindu temples in Kerala. The redirect can be challenged at RfD because there is disagreement here between delete and redirect. Sandstein 13:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gurunathanmukadi Sri Ayyappaguru[edit]

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

No sources, no indication of Notability. Fails WP:NRELORG. WP:PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NRELORG and WP:GNG. No independent coverage of the temple. No evidence of notability. Venkat TL (talk) 07:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hindu temples in Kerala: The page lacks sufficient information to indicate notability. A redirect to the list will provide a place to build information. Gusfriend (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect to the list, so if enough sources and information is added there it could be remade in the future. YuriNikolai (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the redirect, this is a totally worthless and unencylopedic entry, clearly made up story for promotion and escape speedy deletion. Venkat TL (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat TL what "story"? The page only lists a location exists and says where it is. Are you suggesting the temple is made up? YuriNikolai (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@YuriNikolai I was referring to the unsourced legend of the temple, that I and another editor had removed. You can look at the page history. Venkat TL (talk) 07:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar International School[edit]

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

No indication of Notability. The sources are either to school directories, primary sources (school's website) or trivial mentions in local media. WP:PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It looks like an notable article. In google trends and facebook, this institute has considerable notability. There are so many schools of similar repute in wikipidia. Even the creator of this article is not interested to reply, so I can't trace it out more about this or expand or find sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugvugvgu (talk • contribs) 12:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator as this is referenced to a bunch of ridiculously trivial sources that are either primary or otherwise not usable for notability. The fact that it is massively ref bombed doesn't bode well for notability either. Instead it just comes like an attempt to fake things. Nor does Facebook or Google Trends' opinions of what is notable matter here. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination.--SM7^--talk-- 19:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this article has no notability, almost all articles of the category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Schools_in_Erode_district has no notability. I feel this page has some good scope of expansion. It can be made stub rather to delete. Malay231 (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A case of WP:REFBOMB that uses mostly primary sources and directories to make the subject seem important. Secondary schools don't have assumed notability, and there doesn't appear to be secondary sources to meet other notability guidelines. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES suggests merging with the school district, but merging with Erode District#Education seems like WP:UNDUE. The keep arguments above are based solely on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. assertions that the subject passes GNG have not been met with compiant sourcing. Star Mississippi 14:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fausto Omar Vásquez[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Out of curiosity, was a WP:BEFORE done before the nomination? I did a short search and quickly found this substantial coverage so I'm wondering if a thorough search has been done or if the nomination only based the GNG failure on the sources in the article. Alvaldi (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That appears to be an interview, and isn't independent from the subject? BilledMammal (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is independent from the subject, it's a valid reference.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not if it doesn't include any significant coverage apart from what the subject said. BilledMammal (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just to clarify, I was interested in knowing whether the nominator had looked for any more sources, because if not then I was thinking about trying a thorough search as I found the above source promising. BilledMammal is absolutely right about that if there isn't any significant coverage apart from what the subject said in an interview then it shouldn't count towards GNG. Interviews often do include various statements about the subject by the interviewer which could count towards GNG but whether that is the case here is a matter of an opinion. However, all of that would be mute if there weren't any other significant sources as GNG requires multiple significant sources. While I haven't done a thorough search yet, I did come up with this one while Googling his name+nickname. I will probably do a better search tonight, right now I'm bouncing between weak delete/weak keep. Alvaldi (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, just no.T v x1 11:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFOOTY. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY, also not notable as a coach. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball at the 2009 Maccabiah Games[edit]

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

Unsourced for starts, and non-notable sporting event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably can be referenced. The problem of the article is again that there is no there there. gidonb (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of chess variants#Chance and incomplete information. Whether and what to merge is up to editors. Sandstein 11:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Choker (video game)[edit]

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

This video game has not yet been the subject of discussion in multiple reliable independent verifiable sources anywhere. The only references provided are to the subject's own website (2) and to another site that only shows a schedule of play (1). We have no subject-specific notability guidelines for video games, and this one does not appear to meet our General Notability Guidelines. A loose necktie (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a clear fail of WP:GNG, Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't make the cut for WP:GNG. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added in additional sources to improve quality. SomeChess (talk) 10:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at these sources. One of them is once again to the Choker website-- this is exactly the kind of source that may not be used here because it lacks independence from the subject. The second one, however, to Poker Tube, may be legitimate. It has in depth discussion, and appears to be independent. I do not know how reliable the source is, but it may mean that the subject now qualifies as notable after all. You will need to find at least one more source like this to satisfy the "multiple" part of WP:GNG. Am withholding judgement pending more input here. A loose necktie (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added in an additional source and removed any direct website sources owned by Choker SomeChess (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NVG. I didn't find much on Google except press releases.JMB1980 (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I originally nominated this article for deletion, but given the changes made to it since then, it appears to pass WP:GNG. A loose necktie (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 01:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of chess variants#Chance and incomplete information. Not finding enough coverage for a stand alone article. I added a mention of Choker to the list of chess variants and think it's a reasonable alternative to deletion. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also note that the Verge source reads like no more than a press release/advertisement. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. @A loose necktie PerryPerryD Talk To Me 14:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as the previous voters have stated. Sources 1-3 are more or less primary, while source 5 is, as stated above, basically an advertisement. While there is information about the subject, it is very difficult to maintain NPOV using the sources currently on the article. A web search turned up [10], which could help maintain NPOV, as it has a short section criticizing the app for bugginess. However, this leaves ~1.5 sources counting towards GNG, not of especially high quality, which is not enough for me. Toadspike (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A merge may be a bit too much as stated by Qwaiiplayer, A simple redirect should safice. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 17:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Johan of Limburg Hohenlimburg Broich, probst of Werden[edit]

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

Very unclear notability. This article seems to be based on research of primary sources, and a self-published book. I wasn't able to find better sources, but perhaps a different combination of search terms will give better results (I tried it with Hohenlimburg Broich probst Werden). Fram (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could find a few trivial mentions using either English Johan Limburg provost or the alternative German Johann Limburg Propst or Johannes Limburg Propst as search terms. [11] [12]. Overall, the article seems to be original research, as the majority of sources are primary documents from the Middle Ages. Redirect to one of the many articles about his family, where a one-sentence mention would be appropriate. —Kusma (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting is also ok, there is already a one sentence mention in Counts of Limburg Hohenlimburg and Broich, and given the lack of secondary sources, that's all that seems merited here. While this is all fascinating as family history, we have good reasons to publish no original research at all, and working directly from medieval documents is exactly that. —Kusma (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very long contribution by VanlmugH, collapsed for legibility
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Concerns About Literature and References Indeed: The bibliography is limited but can still be supplemented. More references to authentic sources (certificates, deeds) can also be added. Unfortunately, I made a mistake in reference (inline citation) [2]. The book EAN 9789490258184 (2018) is (possibly due to rectification) no longer available in bookshops. It is certain that the persons in question were neither day laborers nor bastards. The word "swindlers" did not belong to their vocabulary and therefore does not appear in their surviving sources. My proposal is: Supplementing the Literature More source references to include To delete (inline citation) reference [2] entirely. VanlmugH (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Please don't add more references to original documents. These are primary sources, and summarizing them is original research, which is not welcome on Wikipedia. What we do is work from secondary sources, where historians have interpreted and contextualised the primary sources. —Kusma (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] PRIMARY, SECONDAIRY, TERTIARY SOURCES Deer Kusma If there are too much references it can be removed easely. Adding references is a time consuming proces. The questions concerning this and other lemma's I recently made is what is too less and what is too much. I discoverd in several WIKIPEDIA Lemma's known wrong information due to outdated Literature and references to books with unreliable information. Fore example a few day's ago corrected f.i. "List of states in the Holy Roman Enpire"(L) Because I knew the original charters about that subject and the unreliable reference souces used. DEFINITION WIKIPEDIA Says: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. DEFINITION HISTORICAL PRIMARY SOURCES. (Original historical charters) Example: Magna Carta. An authentic charter preserved in a state archive. Is the most close original material about an event. A account written by people who are directly involved. It is a prove of certain persons who have exist. The position (power) they had. The role they played. Witness of an event. Primary Sources: Authentic historical charters Location of these Primary Sources Related to this Lemma. Fürstliches Archiv Rheda / Gelders Archief; Arnhem (NL) / Hauptstaatsarchiv Düsseldorf HSA / Historisches Archiv der Stadt Köln: (http://historischesarchivkoeln.de) / Nordrhein-westfälischen / Hauptstaatsarchivs; Düsseldorf / Rheinisches Archiv; Bonn / Staatsarchiv Münster / Münster Stadtarchiv Dortmund; Dortmund/ Stadtarchiv Duisburg; Duisburg / Stadtarchiv Essen; Essen / Stadtarchiv Hagen; Hagen / Stadtarchiv Mülheim; Mülheim an der Ruhr / Stadtarchive Bochum;Bochum DEFINITION HISTORICAL SECONDAIRY SOURCES. (Charter books, Deed (Acta) books, Find books Transcriptions, Interpretations, evidence, facts published by well-know (mainly German) scientists (historians) in Charter- (Urkunde-)books available for reference in libraries of universities. And find books written by conservators of historical archives. Often available on the websites of universities and archives. Related to this Lemma Interpreters of Primary Sources: Aders / Berg / Ennen / Fahne / Korteweg / Kötzachke / Lacomblet / Oediger / Quadflieg / Schubert / Strange / Wisplinghoff Qualified Historian and Authors: Bleicher / Escher / Hoederath / Kimpen / Melchers / Rudinger / Stehkamper / Steinbach / Uhrlrz Qualfied Institution: Max Planck Institute; Berlin DEFINITION HISTORICAL TERTIARY SOURCES. (Other Publications, Literature) Texts, subtracted from Charter-, Acta- and Find books, collected from several archives. Published concentrated in (Regest)books concerning one subject (family). Related to this Lemma Urkundenbücher der Stadt Duisburg / / Regesten Digitales Archiv http://lehre.hki.uni-koeln.de / Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek http://archive.nrw.de / Regesten boeken HVL;DL01&DL02:RG isue date (present in the library of Dutch institutions) LAST IMPROVED LEMMA JOHAN OF LIMBURG HOHENLIMBURG BROICH, PROBST OF WERDEN PHOTOS OF CHARTERS: Related to Lemma: Function: Photo of Authentic charter, directly related to topic, with reference to charter book and with reference in text collection book, is a directly support of the lemma text. SOURCES, REFERENCES AND INLINE CITATIONS: PRIMARY SOURCE / INTERPRETER / REGEST BOOK (text collection book) DATED REFERENCE Suggestions for removel of overdone references, are welcome VanlmugH (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very long contribution by VanlmugH, collapsed for legibility

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Concerns About Literature and References

Indeed: The bibliography is limited but can still be supplemented. More references to authentic sources (certificates, deeds) can also be added. Unfortunately, I made a mistake in reference (inline citation) [2]. The book EAN 9789490258184 (2018) is (possibly due to rectification) no longer available in bookshops. It is certain that the persons in question were neither day laborers nor bastards. The word "swindlers" did not belong to their vocabulary and therefore does not appear in their surviving sources.

My proposal is:

Supplementing the Literature
More source references to include
To delete (inline citation) reference [2] entirely.

VanlmugH (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add more references to original documents. These are primary sources, and summarizing them is original research, which is not welcome on Wikipedia. What we do is work from secondary sources, where historians have interpreted and contextualised the primary sources. —Kusma (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PRIMARY, SECONDAIRY, TERTIARY SOURCES

Deer Kusma If there are too much references it can be removed easely. Adding references is a time consuming proces. The questions concerning this and other lemma's I recently made is what is too less and what is too much. I discoverd in several WIKIPEDIA Lemma's known wrong information due to outdated Literature and references to books with unreliable information. Fore example a few day's ago corrected f.i. "List of states in the Holy Roman Enpire"(L) Because I knew the original charters about that subject and the unreliable reference souces used.

DEFINITION WIKIPEDIA Says: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.

DEFINITION HISTORICAL PRIMARY SOURCES. (Original historical charters)

Example: Magna Carta. An authentic charter preserved in a state archive. Is the most close original material about an event. A account written by people who are directly involved. It is a prove of certain persons who have exist. The position (power) they had. The role they played. Witness of an event.

Primary Sources:

Authentic historical charters
Location of these Primary Sources

Related to this Lemma.

Fürstliches Archiv Rheda / Gelders Archief; Arnhem (NL) / Hauptstaatsarchiv Düsseldorf HSA / Historisches Archiv der Stadt Köln: (http://historischesarchivkoeln.de) / Nordrhein-westfälischen / Hauptstaatsarchivs; Düsseldorf / Rheinisches Archiv; Bonn / Staatsarchiv Münster / Münster Stadtarchiv Dortmund; Dortmund/ Stadtarchiv Duisburg; Duisburg / Stadtarchiv Essen; Essen / Stadtarchiv Hagen; Hagen / Stadtarchiv Mülheim; Mülheim an der Ruhr / Stadtarchive Bochum;Bochum

DEFINITION HISTORICAL SECONDAIRY SOURCES. (Charter books, Deed (Acta) books, Find books

Transcriptions, Interpretations, evidence, facts published by well-know (mainly German) scientists (historians) in Charter- (Urkunde-)books available for reference in libraries of universities. And find books written by conservators of historical archives. Often available on the websites of universities and archives.

Related to this Lemma

Interpreters of Primary Sources:
Aders / Berg / Ennen / Fahne / Korteweg / Kötzachke / Lacomblet / Oediger / Quadflieg / Schubert / Strange / Wisplinghoff
Qualified Historian and Authors:
Bleicher / Escher / Hoederath / Kimpen / Melchers / Rudinger / Stehkamper / Steinbach / Uhrlrz
Qualfied Institution:
Max Planck Institute; Berlin

DEFINITION HISTORICAL TERTIARY SOURCES. (Other Publications, Literature)

Texts, subtracted from Charter-, Acta- and Find books, collected from several archives. Published concentrated in (Regest)books concerning one subject (family).

Related to this Lemma

Urkundenbücher der Stadt Duisburg / / Regesten Digitales Archiv http://lehre.hki.uni-koeln.de / Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek http://archive.nrw.de / Regesten boeken HVL;DL01&DL02:RG isue date (present in the library of Dutch institutions)

LAST IMPROVED LEMMA: JOHAN OF LIMBURG HOHENLIMBURG BROICH, PROBST OF WERDEN

PHOTOS OF CHARTERS: Related to Lemma:

Function: Photo of Authentic charter, directly related to topic, with reference to charter book and with reference in text collection book, is a directly support of the lemma text.

SOURCES, REFERENCES AND INLINE CITATIONS:

PRIMARY SOURCE / INTERPRETER / REGEST BOOK (text collection book) DATED REFERENCE

Suggestions for removel of overdone references, are welcome VanlmugH (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTABILITY; WP:NOR. What is in the article doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO, and even were he notable, the overwhelming amount of WP:OR in the existing article makes it a candidate for WP:TNT. Agricolae (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No policy-based rationales were cited in favour of keeping. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honduras–Turkey relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No embassies, or agreements. 2 meetings of foreign ministers on the side of multilateral summits. The level of trade at USD20 million is tiny when considering the size of the Turkish economy. The Turkish language article says very little too. LibStar (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Turkey, and Honduras. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable with a de facto standard set per the numerous other similar articles that I've seen deleted between countries that have essentially no relations between each other neither positive nor negative. I guess results based arguing isn't the best in an AfD, but there is no notability to this. TartarTorte 22:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TartarTorte. Nothing here suggests that the relationship between these countries is significant enough to pass the general notability guideline. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I recently tried to improve the article. Randam (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
weak keap. It is improved and should stay. Shadow4dark (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ryan Higa. ✗plicit 13:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to be Ninja[edit]

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

Youtube as a source lacks independence, reliability, editorial oversight, and several other characteristics that made a source suitable to make a claim of notability about it. Until this particular Youtube video gets discussed in such sources (i.e., in major newspapers or magazines, in a book, or in an academic journal, etc.) it doesn't appear to meet our notability requirements (see WP:VIDEOLINK for discussion about the appropriateness of using Youtube as a source for an article). A loose necktie (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ryan Higa. TompaDompa (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is filled with WP:FANCRUFT and intricate details, and the topic has extremely low coverage. I don't think we need a redirect to Ryan Higa as well. Sparkl (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, zero sourcing found and improper capitalization makes it an unlikely search target Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ryan Higa and mention the video in the Ryan article if it hasn't already been done Rlink2 (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. and I don't see one forthcoming with the language issues. No objection to a relist at a time where more input might be garnered. Star Mississippi 14:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Centipede (film)[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail requirements in WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability since August 2021 DonaldD23 talk to me 23:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: - did you relist this because you feel the conversation has legs? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my preference is to see at least 2 or 3 editors participating in a deletion discussion before deciding whether or not to delete a page. Of course, it's not mandatory but a simple relist brought out two more editors, you and Elmidae so I think it was worth doing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Can't say I'm getting much joy out of these links. The film set two separate sales/ticketing records, but that's not actually part of WP:NFILM criteria. What's missing here is critical reviews, which I'm not capable of finding in Persian. In absence of these, tend delete. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No soft delete since this has been PRODded. Language no doubt an issue but let's see if we can get as many sources as legs. Nice pun Lugnuts!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable for box office takings and reviews listed here which need assessing by Persian editors imv Atlantic306 (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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