< March 08	March 10 >

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. Slightly IAR as a PROD was challenged in 2014, but it has already been relisted and no votes to counter the nomination Star Mississippi 01:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alaskan Coalition of Student Leaders[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable and has been completely unsourced since its creation in 2006 (despite being explicitly tagged as unsourced since 2013 ElKevbo (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Alaska. Shellwood (talk) 22:56, 2 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!} 23:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My search found nothing more than a few passing mentions. This group does not seem to have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources; it consequently fails WP:NORG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:36, 16 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leighton Lillie[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, can only find press coverage from his hometown. SportingFlyer T·C 20:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 20:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Idaho. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 2 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!} 23:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject has a compelling story, but unfortunately the only outlet to tell it is a local CBS affiliate KLEW, which has done so via an interview. I'm surprised this was relisted and not treated a s a PROD. Fails GNG. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 00:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Insufficient coverage to justify an article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see a few issues in the article. The article hasn't been updated properly and contains outdated info like "Along with his teammate Daryl Ecklund, Leighton is currently training for the 2007 Supercross Season" so I am leaning towards Draft instead of deletion because I think if it's updated with sources then we can keep the article. Jamalahmadpk (talk) 19:28, 10 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 mayors of Lima#Mayors of Lima. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Héctor García Ribeyro[edit]

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

The article has had a notice of no sources since December of 2009, so for over 12 years. This is just not acceptable. I have searched for sourcing and found nothing. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Peru. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 22:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Lima where the subject is listed. Lima is a city where we should find sources and generally keep the mayor, but in its current unsourced state should be redirected. --Enos733 (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This source confirms that he was mayor of Lima. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:34, 3 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors of Lima#Mayors of Lima as he is listed there and the current article does not pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 23:23, 9 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) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Almodovar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. The language of the article is very promotional. It should be either deleted or redirected to Enterprise. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If almost every source is a press release, promotional is what one is going to get. Uncle G (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are at least two good sources that are not promotional: Bagli, NYT, and Finn, NYT. There are others that are quotes or interviews, but they support the fact that she is an expert in this area. I have found proof that she was head of the NY State Housing Financial Agency [1] but the agency web site does not go back that far so it's hard to get actual dates of service. The NYT articles also mention this. The promotional references can be removed and the article will be fine. Lamona (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources can be improved, and there appears to be support for WP:BASIC notability as a business leader and housing expert, in addition to the sources noted above, e.g. Priscilla Almodovar resigns (Times-Union, 2009, after "three years of leadership" as president and CEO of the New York State Housing Finance Agency and the State of New York Mortgage Agency), JPM Promotes Almodovar (The Bond Buyer, 2010), The Future Reset: Closing the Racial Wealth Gap (Washington Post, 2020, "...She joined Enterprise from JPMorgan Chase..."), $600 A Week: Poverty Remedy Or Job Slayer? (NPR, 2020), 1.4 million seek jobless aid, first increase since March (AP/LA Times, 2020), New data shows more Americans are having trouble paying their rent (CNN, 2020), Biden’s $213 billion plan to save affordable housing (Fast Company, 2021), Notable Hispanic Leaders & Executives (Crain's New York, 2021), As Federal Disaster Aid Languishes, Private Lenders Are Filling the Gap (NYT, 2021). Beccaynr (talk) 04:07, 9 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!} 23:02, 9 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 a fourth re-list isn't going to help a poorly attended AfD. Language is an issue for sure Star Mississippi 01:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Zunnunova[edit]

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

This bypassed AFC not clear how they are notable? Presenter of non notable show Kinomani, CEO of non notable company Milliy TV and leadership of non notable company Shukrona Media Production. Theroadislong (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have you checked out the current references? They're all in Uzbek or Russian but they still count. Note that Lola Zunnunova is notable enough to have her own article on ru.wiki and uz.wiki (yes, I know that not all wikis have the same criteria for inclusion but it's an important indicator). You claim that Milliy TV is not notable but I'm not sure what led you to that conclusion. Again, the page does exist on ru.wiki and uz.wiki. It should not be a surprise that nobody on en.wiki is particularly interested in writing a stub on a recently-created Uzbek TV channel but that does not mean that this channel is not notable. Pichpich (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We are trying to improve coverage of women by encouraging translations from other languages. The lack of English-language sources should not be used as a basis for deletion.--Ipigott (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete from what I can tell a lot of the references are from entertainment blogs and don't contain in-depth coverage of the woman. There are also a few interviews. So the references are not super strong. That said, there does seem to be a good amount of them, I don't speak the language, and therefore I'm not going to assume more can't be found. Which is why I'm going with weak delete based on the poor quality of what there is, but with the caveat that it could really go either way. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit further opinions on non English (Uzbek and Russian) sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:53, 2 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!} 22:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I have not checked the references, but an article should speak for itself without the need for a reader to check the referenced, and this article does not provide evidence of notability. Machine-translating 20 references is tedious; if the originator identifies three principal references, I will check them. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Theroadislong says that this bypassed AFC. I will explain. A draft had been in AFC since the end of November 2021, and had not been reviewed. The author then copied the article into article space in February 2022, at which point I declined the draft, without reviewing the draft, as duplicating the article, and the article was nominated for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:12, 13 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 Dan Donegan. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal (band)[edit]

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

A Google search for this band and their album suggests "Obscure 80s bands", and that's pretty accurate. I can find no coverage of this band whatsoever. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Illinois. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the mention in Dan Donegan is almost certainly enough, there's nothing independent about this band. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with this nomination. It doesn't meet notablity.MartinWilder (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dan Donegan, who is the only notable bandmember. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 12:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dan Donegan, if anyone is concerned about alternatives to deletion, but there is no reason for this band to have its own article just because one of its members became notable somewhere else many years later. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems a fine solution. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:50, 16 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 Russian minority in Ukraine. Redirects are cheap Star Mississippi 18:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian-speaking Ukraine[edit]

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

Corresponding articles were deleted in ruwiki and ukwiki. Generally lacking reliable sources and does not correspond to WP:ORG Renvoy (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Renvoy (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Russia. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of lack of notability, which saves me from needing to figure out the NPOV issues, which would otherwise seem like a red flag. It's also really badly titled, as it reads like a geography, but is an organization? CT55555 (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There’s not a single secondary source cited. —Michael Z. 16:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Russian minority in Ukraine _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems fine here as well. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:50, 16 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) 14:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Titterton[edit]

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

Lacks WP:SIGCOV to prove notability. I looked through over 20 pages of Newspapers.com results (here), and while there is coverage of him, it's all routine. No SIGCOV on Google Books, nothing from a Google search, another one-liner. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again with the terrible nominations and the lack of WP:BEFORE, my very first citation as thus [2] Basing off of that, there will be more than enough citations around to use. [3]. Govvy (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - large number of professional appearances. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 12:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Article needs work but passes WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - apart from Your Herefordshire, is there anything else showing significant coverage? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Spiderone: He didn't play much for Coventry, that's for sure, so it's not really noteworthy, it seems just two league games from the bench and I am not sure how many cup games, but there is a full cup game there. However he played a fair bit for Hereford United when they where in the league and a good bit for Wycombe Wanderers. Notability will be down to local newspapers at the time for those two clubs, internet news back then isn't what it is today. There are certainly some hits I found like this weird one, [4] saying his nickname was "Tits"! There is an article on Coventry City player association page. The page is certainly lacking, but that doesn't mean it can't be fixed up. It would need someone dedicated to sort it out. Govvy (talk) 14:56, 14 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 is sources don't meet requirements to establish notability Star Mississippi 18:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swaran Ghar[edit]

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

Swaran Ghar

Article about television series that has no Reception section and no independent significant coverage. An article should speak for itself and tell why the subject is notable. This article only says that the series exists. It was moved from article space to draft space as needing better sourcing, and was then promptly recreated in article space. The reviewer was correct in moving it to draft space, because the references are not independent and secondary, and because there is no Reception section.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	filmibeat.com	Interview with actress	No	Not about series		No
2	msn.com	Puff piece about two actors	No	Yes	Yes	No

Maybe there is independent significant coverage. This article is not that coverage. This copy should be deleted from article space because there already is a draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with improved sources. I found some more sources about the television series, such as a review by TellyChakkar ([5]) and Pinkvilla ([6]). There is also an interview with lead actor Ajay Singh Chaudhary on Times of India ([7]). There is enough coverage to keep. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ICTFSOURCES seems helpful for source assessment, e.g. The following should not be considered reliable sources. [...] Filmibeat.com [...] Tellychakkar.com [...]. I also found several interviews, but these do not have independent content to help support notability: producer Ravi Dubey (India Today, Feb. 25, 2022), star Sangita Ghosh (News18/MSN, Feb. 28, 2022), star Ronit Roy (PTI/The Print, Feb. 27, 2022), Ghosh (The Tribune, Jan. 11, 2022), Ghosh (TOI, Mar. 1, 2022). The series began on 28 Feb. 2022, and there does not yet appear to be sufficient independent and secondary coverage to support an article. Beccaynr (talk) 03:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, the article depends on PR/spam/paid links. Lacking significant coverage. Jeni Wolf (talk) 05:48, 12 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) 20:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Yong[edit]

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

Fails WP:MMABIO and WP:NHOOPS, no notable accomplishments in either sport. WP:GNG is failed also, most coverage I found was through routine sporting reports, and a few youtube videos of him playing basketball. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 18:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and New York. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NHOOPS and GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 20:22, 10 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) 20:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Brainard[edit]

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

With all due respect for Mr Brainard's musical accomplishments, they do not appear to have attracted much coverage in reliable sources. —S Marshall T/C 17:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 17:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced BLP, I see no reliable sources after a quick search. — ((u|Bsoyka)) ^talk 18:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nom, poor attempt at promotion. Oaktree b (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also agree with nom, does not meet notability. MartinWilder (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck this !vote because sockpuppets don't get to take part in AfDs.—S Marshall T/C 16:36, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not enough coverage by reliable sources. Alex-h (talk) 13:21, 12 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 speedy delete per A1, A11, G3... take your pick. No point in dragging this out. Kinu ^t/_c 19:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game Villains[edit]

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

this is basically just a copy of fandom - so rather unencyclopedic and given how many video games there are (many of which are not notable) this list seems rather indiscriminate and way too big. we have plenty here that some of these can be repurposed for and we already have adequate lists for notable villains in notable franchises. CUPIDICAE💕 16:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I honestly can't tell what this article is supposed to be about. Is it about villains in video games in general? If so why does the lead describe it as a "franchise aimed at older audiences and gamers"? Seems like this could plausibly even be speedy'd under WP:A1 or WP:A7. Colin M (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is basically a list article that fails WP:NLIST and WP:LISTPURP for being hopelessly broad such that it cannot be discussed as a notable set. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Delete looks like it could even be an outright hoax or thing made up one day, or a copy of one made by a user with severe WP:CIR issues. Dronebogus (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just seeing the title, I thought it might be an article on the concept of villains in video games, but actually looking at the article, it seems to actually be some completely non-notable fanwork that was just WP:MADEUP? I'm almost leaning towards this being eligible for Speedy Delete under criteria A11. Rorshacma (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Its only source comes from a fan-made concept...on Fanon Wiki. Looks like Mickey's House of Villains...with video game antagonists instead. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 19:10, 9 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. Suggestion of sole keep vote that the subject clearly passes GNG is wholly unsupported in either this AfD or the article itself. Fenix down (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ifeanyi David Nduka[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability, doesn't seem to have received any significant attention from independent sources. On a side note, I can imagine quite a few players now getting a chance to play in Russia but a total lack of attention for doing so (or worse for them, getting negative attention). Fram (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passes WP:NFOOTY as he plays in the Russian Football National League which is a WP:FPL. The signing was covered in Russian press, which should be sufficient, should not be judged on criteria-free basis. 16:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Geregen2 (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please check WP:NFOOTY, it is probably quite different to what you remember. The articles you added (thanks for that) are very short though, about multiple players. It's etter than nothing, but don't seem sufficient to pass WP:NBASIC. Fram (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, WP:NFOOTY indeed was limited to managers, my mistake, I did not realize. Ignore that argument of mine then. Geregen2 (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Geregen2: NFOOTY was not limited to managers. It had always included players as well. There seems to have been an RfC recently regarding automatic notability for sportspeople, but this talk page shows that it's still under contention. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 15:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks any substantial coverage. He does not pass GNG, and there is no other ground for keeping him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes GNG and NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:00, 10 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) 15:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1959-60 Cornwall Combination[edit]

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

Season article for a competition at the 12th (if I see it correctly) level of the English football pyramid. Information is woefully incomplete but basically correct (see this primary source, but that doesn't mean that this is a notable subject of course. Fram (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to have sufficient coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject to warrant an individual season article. Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The artivcle does not even make clear what sport this is about, but I presume this concerns a series of amateur teams. If it is about football (soccer), this is presumably a local league of no notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not that it probably matters, but prior to decades of restructuring of the league system, this league would have been quite a bit higher than the 12th level in 1959 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, as the league was (and still is) too minor to generate significant coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and pinging @Jose the Tender Engine: to warn about creating non-notable articles. Three out of his four creations (not considering the draft, which is not notable as well) are non-notable tournaments with no evidence of notability whatsoever. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 18:28, 14 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 roads in Hamilton, Ontario. As WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlton Avenue (Hamilton, Ontario)[edit]

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

Notability not established with substantive sources about the street as a whole. A listing of generic places along the length of it does not an encyclopedia article make. Reywas92^Talk 15:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 15:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 15:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You would think that Berenbaum 2002 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBerenbaum2002 (help) would be on point, wouldn't you? After all, the heading is "Charlton Avenue". In fact, it spends 1 sentence on the street and proceeds to do a biography of Benjamin Ernest Charlton. Uncle G (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Berenbaum, Ronald (2002). "Charlton Avenue". In Houghton, Margaret (ed.). Hamilton Street Names: An Illustrated History. Lorimer Illustrated History. James Lorimer & Company. ISBN 9781550287738.
Comment I added a couple of times it made the news, but hardly in depth coverage, so I'm abstaining from voting due to not knowing what the usual criteria for a street is. CT55555 (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim to notability, minor road. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 00:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and merge if there's anything worth salvaging) to List of roads in Hamilton, Ontario, as we've done with other similar Ontario roads. Nfitz (talk) 23:23, 14 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 admin action needed. Moved to King's Forest Park and then redirect changed to List of streets in Hamilton, Ontario. While I don't agree with User:RandomCanadian's decision to move during an AFD on paper, in practice it creates needless work to undo all that only to redo it tomorrow when the 7 days are up. Relevant essays/guidelines/policies: WP:IAR and the millions of things written about it. And yes, I am using IAR to fragrantly violate the whole "don't close a discussion you !voted in" thing. I promise this is an incredibly rare action that I in all likelihood probably will not have a good reason to do again, like, ever.(non-admin closure) casualdejekyll 02:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cochrane Road (Hamilton, Ontario)[edit]

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

Notability not established with substantive sources about the generic road as a whole. Most content is irrelevant and fails to provide a basis for an article. The map shows that King's Forest Park is on the other side of Greenhill Ave, which intersects with NINE streets including this one. So why are all these waterfall pictures here, when they're literally over a mile away from the end of the road? Reywas92^Talk 14:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 14:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 14:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To answer your question, all the Ontario street articles are like this. No notability to the street, just a directory of landmarks and neighbourhoods that are sometimes not even on the topic street. I would also support deletion of the other Hamilton streets that were deprodded (Cannon and Charlton). Feel free to venture up and tackle Toronto streets! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Move to King's Forest Park The article has no cited statements about the street itself, and in fact the entire history section never even mentions the street, just things near it. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's enumerate-the-grid-street-by-street coverage of Hamilton, Ontario sometimes obscures the actual subjects in amusing ways. Witness this picture of the Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral of St. Vladimir, Barton Street. Uncle G (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can this article get by without mentioning the hardwood flooring shop? ☺
What Ahecht says is a bit of a clue, here. The introduction to the article is just plain false. This road doesn't have a junction on the traffic circle. So remove that entire introduction and the useless list of parallel streets, and what's left? Surprisingly, it's an article about King's Forest Park in Hamilton (or King's Forest Park (Hamilton, Ontario) as the article would have it), heavily disguised as an article about a surburban road. All of the pictures are of the park. All of the prose is about the park.
I do wonder how people make these decisions. Looking at a map of Hamilton and deciding what to write about: "Do I write about the park, the big splodge of colour with all of the things? Or about some road?" Mind you, writing about the road has effectively given us a stub about the park.
Uncle G (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is it with roads in Ontario specifically that there are a lot of articles on them? Same deal as the Wiokipeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
My keyboard died halfway through writing this comment. The new one has a tiny backspace key and I am not enjoying it + the enter key is where the backspace key was on my old keyboard. I hate you Logitech. Anyway I don't even feel like finishing the comment so have fun with this casualdejekyll 22:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to clean it up years ago by merging about 3 dozen road articles into a set of 3 listicles (list-articles). They have largely been restored over the years since, albeit many by a user who has since been permabanned. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 23:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I just discovered that the new keyboard I was struggling with on the 9th is called by some people a "big-ass enter", which is accurate. New keyboard acquired, thankfully. casualdejekyll 16:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I figured it was like my wireless Xbox controller, that sticks on whatever I'm pressing as the battery dies! I'm still curious to know what is equally as shitty as articles on Ontario streets, because I can assure you that Ontario highways are not in the same basket :) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't Upper James or one of the main drags in Hamilton, it's just a road. Oaktree b (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've blanked the street lists. The article about King's Forest Park that was hiding behind them is a little easier to see, now. Uncle G (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Does not meet notability. Alex-h (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and merge if there's anything worth salvaging) to List of roads in Hamilton, Ontario, as we've done with other similar Ontario roads. Nfitz (talk) 23:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Purge superfluous details and move to King's Forest Park as that is what the article is actually about (per Uncle G), that park actually appears to have enough good sources (GNG) to have a policy-compliant article about it, and to preserve page history per WP:ATTREQ. And also procedural keep as the discussion here has been mostly about the street and not the park. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. By all means make an article about that - perhaps even with much of the content. But I think this should still redirect to list of streets (where there can be in turn a link to a major of a feature of the street). Nfitz (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that this is already an article about that. If you want this to redirect to a list of streets, you're free to create the redirect after this has been moved. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By that I meant King's Forest Park. What do you mean? Nfitz (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As things stand, the only real issue with the article is that it is a the wrong title. It really isn't an article about Cochrane Road, but an article about King's Forest Park. It should be moved to the proper title (and the superfluous lead removed). Then if you want to have the street name to redirect to a list, you're free to edit the redirect thereafter. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with that. Nfitz (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note per the above short discussion, 1) the article has been moved to King's Forest Park, and trimmed of the excess bits; 2) the redirect now points to the list of streets and 3) this AfD seems rather pointless to continue now... If somebody wants to start an AfD on the park article or an RfD on the new redirect, they're free to do so, but clearly that would be a different discussion than the one that has so far been had. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:26, 15 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 Leipzig University. There was a rough consensus that this institute, though well known, does not satisfy our notability guidelines. Participants also roughly agreed that this is a topic with potential. Since the page's current content is merely a directory, I don't think there is a case for any of it to be saved. Redirecting acknowledges the importance of the subject as a potential search term. If suitable sourcing emerges, an expansion of the redirect will always be possible. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Ludwig Institute of Physiology[edit]

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

First of all this just a glorified list of mostly non-notable faculty members and teachers, not an encyclopedic article in any way, shape, or form. Secondly, the only reference in the article is to the faculties website and I couldn't find anything in a before WP:BEFORE about it, except for a couple of trivial name drops in a few science books. Finally, the article is about a facility of University of Leipzig and it's already mentioned there in the University of Leipzig article and there's zero reason to have a badly referenced fork for this. As a side to that, I had originally proposed the article for deletion but the PROD was removed because supposedly this is one of the oldest research centers in the world and there is no other place for the Wikipedia reader to view it's directors. Both of which are completely ridiculous false statements as there have been research centers since at least the 9th-century and there's no reason the couple of actually notable directors can't just be mentioned in the University of Leipzig article. Hopefully if anyone votes keep they have a better reason to keep the article then the person who removed the PROD. Adamant1 (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either University of Leipzig or Carl Ludwig (perhaps a short para about the Institute as a legacy of his contributions?). The article has remained little changed since its 2010 creation (hardly a sign that there is a thirst for knowledge about all its past faculty members - only three out of 52 are WP-notable). Paul W (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only does the PROD removal reason make no sense, this article makes no sense: it's about an institute that was started in the 19th century, but at present it is simply a list of people, almost all of whom predate that. This can't be merged, either: there's no source for any of this information. Something mentioning this at the Carl Ludwig article would be fine but is beyond the scope of this AfD (since there is, to reiterate, no sourced information in this article). I don't object in principle to a redirect at this location aimed at University of Leipzig, nor am I taking any position on whether the Institute is notable or not - but this is a WP:TNT or WP:HEY situation. Someone will have to rewrite this from scratch (and prove its notability) to make it a mainspace-ready article, so there's no point in keeping this unless someone does that in the next seven days. -- asilvering (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The tone of arguments for deletion or not of articles is disrespectful considering that wikipedians are supposed to be guards of quality; but this is irrelevant to the discussion. Carl Ludwid was a key figure in experimental physiology (had a major influence on the understanding, methods and apparatus used in almost all branches of physiology) and this institute was named after him. I added a link to his wikipedia page, which increases the links to notable people to 4. If we delete this page, there will be no option for other Wikipedians to add to this page whatever information they have and we don't. We are not supposed to know everything in order to start a page -;) It is true that the page needs more development, but deleting it is not the solution. Third, this institute has thrived in the past 2 centuries plus during the ex-communist era; During those periods, we lack publications that are "reliable" in the sense that we have online links. By deleting it, we "delete" the possibility that academics and researchers have a place to start looking for important work conducted by those prominent scientists. Eventually they will have to probably visit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_National_Library https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadtbibliothek_Leipzig .. But I disagree with the person above who said those people are faculty members and teachers. Being elected Head of such a famous research institute makes one stand out from the thousnds of other faculty members and teachers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futuristas (talk • contribs) 11:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For lack of sources. There's no question in my mind that this is a significant research institute. The number of publications coming out from it is impressive as evidenced in searching on the names of scholars in PubMed. However I don't find sources ABOUT the institute (and my German is too limited to search in German sources). If Futuristas or others can add enough to the article to reach notability, I'll vote to keep. I'll also say that it would be a shame to lose this list of scholars, but again more research would be needed for keep. Lamona (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward keep A trawl through Google Books has turned enough mentions of the Institute's history that I think it can pass notability with proper referencing.
- Konrad Krause, Alma mater Lipsiensis: Geschichte der Universität Leipzig von 1409 bis zur Gegenwart (2003)
- Peter Schwartze, Geschichte des Instituts für Pathologische Physiologie an der Universität Leipzig: Die Entwicklung einer Wissenschaftskonzeption und ihre Verwirklichung 1956 bis 1992 (2015)
- Die ersten Institute für Psychologie im deutschsprachigen Raum: Ihre Geschichte von der Entstehung bis zur Gegenwart (2020) Atchom (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to Leipzig University#Faculties. The article consists only of an unsourced list of professors. This is, on its own, inapppropriate content (WP:NOTDIRECTORY). If the sources above do establishe notability, the article can be recreated as a proper article, i.e. with adequately sourced prose about the institute and its history. Sandstein 11:35, 17 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 14:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bal Krishen[edit]

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

Deleted many times in past. Still a promotional article. No idea why the person is notable at all. Should it be WP:SALT? Not meeting WP:GNG. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Laptopinmyhands: Do you mind linking to the previous AfDs? You mention it has been "deleted many time in past", but I'm not finding them. Thank you! --Kbabej (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Kbabej - The deletions were G11. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Bal+Krishen .
Weak Delete pending a review of the references with which this article has been reference-bombed. A biography of a living person should speak for itself and explain why the subject is notable in neutral terms. This does not. It was written to praise its subject, but that doesn't explain why he is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Within the past five months, this article was deleted twice (in Oct 2021 and Dec 2021), denied multiple times at AfC (Dec 2021 and March 2022), and then created in mainspace anyway (March 2022) by the same editor; salting should be considered. The subject does not meet notability guidelines. --Kbabej (talk) 16:15, 11 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 14:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 FIA Formula 3 Championship[edit]

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

article created by an account only known for vandalism, way too early and with entirely unsourced information H4MCHTR (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. H4MCHTR (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced speculation. Fram (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:UNSOURCED, WP:CRYSTAL. No sources about the subject at all. SSSB (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unsourced, purely speculative and potentially even WP:TOOSOON. Would also suggest blocking the user who created it once and for all. MSport1005 (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced, and too soon to be notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I mean, it's nearly a hoax because as I understand it no drivers have been confirmed for 2023. Regardless, it's still completely unsourced and falls far, far short of having the coverage to justify an article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 23:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
G3 speedy delete as a hoax created by a user who is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia after a quick look at their edit history. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 00:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Unsourced speculation. A7V2 (talk) 04:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced speculation, and there’s absolutely no need for a feeder series page more than a year before it starts. DRYT.Motorsport (DRYT.Motorsport) 17:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.... This is a blizzard if I've ever seen one. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 17:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like it's pure unsourced speculation and it is way too soon for it to be notable. Nascar9919 (talk) 00:03, 15 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 Alakbar Taghiyev as an WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 13:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sana gurban[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:NSONG , no reason for notability is given, previously removed sources are about another Armenian song, and the only source left is down. We can't assume notability over an unproven synthetic claim that someone "stole" the song. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the song's notability is synthesised, claiming unrelated songs with similar melody are direct translations from it. Proxy-Notability isn't a valid notability argument. The Arabic song "Fatoum Fatoum" from Sah Al-Noom is the notable song here, which is inspired and includes a verse from an Armenian song of Adiss Harmandian. No independent source links Sana Gurban to any of these songs. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not meeting WP:NALBUM. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alakbar Taghiyev, who wrote the song. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:02, 13 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 speedy delete as copyvio. —Kusma (talk) 13:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People's Democratic Republic of Lanna[edit]

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

Non-existent subject. There is no such thing as a "People's Democratic Republic of Lanna", nor is there any group that professes to be pushing for it. What did exist, as mentioned in the cited sources, was a short-lived protest group called "Sor Por Por Lanna", active in early 2014 during the 2013–2014 Thai political crisis. "Sor Por Por" is a Thai three-letter abbreviation, which the group claims to stand for "Lanna Assembly for the Defense of Democracy", not "People's Democratic Republic" as some have suggested. At the very least the article needs to be renamed. However, I'm going to argue that the group isn't notable either, as the available coverage is only routine news coverage, and no WP:SUSTAINED significance has been demonstrated. Paul_012 (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, the whole thing appears to be a copyvio, so speedy delete. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:55, 9 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 11:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

European Alliance (Kosovo)[edit]

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

Almost 14 year old article which appears to be a hoax, but prefer a discussion to be sure. BEFORE searching turns up nothing related to the party name or party leader (Merlin Harrington appears to be a play on Michael Harrington possibly). Article creator only made four edits in 2008 and the other article they created also appears to be a fiction. Claims of winning 34% in the "last election" appears impossible, no party secured that % in either the 2007 or 2004 elections. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The author also created Kosovar Party that is also a hoax. No such user (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 01:44, 13 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 speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn as AfD is the wrong venue. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WTA Player of the Year[edit]

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

As well as the following other articles:

Duplication of content at WTA Awards. Not notable enough for their own articles, so should be redirected. Letcord (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Awards, Sports, and Tennis. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You have to put the Deletion notification on all of the articles. Dream Focus 12:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What is the reason for deletion rather than making these redirects? Thincat (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Thincat: I want these to be redirects (as I wrote in the nomination), is this not the correct venue to request that? Letcord (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is for requests for deletion. To redirect you can just go ahead and do it. If anyone objects then sort it out on the talk page(s). Since no one has yet supported deletion you are allowed to withdraw this request. You put "Withdrawn by nominator" below your nomination and give a reason. Thincat (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Wrong venue, will redirect and see if there are any objections. Letcord (talk) 14:48, 9 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 has a been a contentious and argumentative debate. However, the dispute pivots on the lack of available sources, and in particular the observation that the player's notability is contained entirely in a time when online sources would be reasonably expected to be available. Therefore, the WP:GNG concerns by those advocating deletion trump the WP:NFOOTY arguments by those wanting to keep. I have also observed that most "keep" !votes have been adequately refuted by those advocating deletion, while "delete" !votes have been largely ignored. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Lablache[edit]

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

Has played for the national team, but this hasn't apparently generated any significant coverage at all. One of these cases were the "presumed" notability of WP:NSPORTS seems to be too optimistic, and "actual", required notability is missing. Fram (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage that would suggest they meet WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played football internationally. --SuperJew (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? If someone has done something that no one bothered to write about in any depth, then why should we have an "article" on it? We just had an RfC decide that every sports articles should have one source with significant coverage from the start, not "perhaps such a source exists". This article has no such source, and no such sources can be found online or are provided by you. Fram (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Demanding people find online sources is a violation of Wikipedia:Offline sources. I imagine there are very few newspapers from the Seychelles that publish all their content online, so it's unfair to demand online sources must be found for them (and is in fact a WP:BIAS against countries with lower levels of their newspaper coverage available online). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, that would be a violation, that's why I didn't do it. Anything else? Fram (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - (ec) I don't believe they were demanding online sources; I believe they were saying that they could find no online sources, and no sources, online or offline, have been provided. If offline sources can be provided that result in the athlete meeting WP:GNG, then we should keep the article. BilledMammal (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, there's going to be a possible WP:CSB issue here. When I could write an article about a footballer who's never even played a professional game (with sources like this) but we can't source info for a player that's played in the World Cup qualifiers, it makes you think. Black Kite (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I think we should consider making local/entertainment coverage of athletes not count towards notability, but that is a different discussion. However, an under sourced microstub does not help with CSB, though it can hide the issue. BilledMammal (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with entertainment coverage as sport is entertainment- that's why people watch it Atlantic306 (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - If offline sources can be provided that result in the athlete meeting WP:GNG Because it's really easy to just go to the Seychelles and pick up their newspapers which may well have coverage of him.... This isn't a problem just for this article, the result of those RFCs is that there is now large systemic bias against countries who don't have large online newspaper coverage and/or a large number of editors in that country able to find offline sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Seychelles Nation is pretty much the only major newspaper in the Seychelles, it has an online archive dating from 2005, six years before Lablache's career started. It has not one single significant source on the subject. Alvaldi (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        
        - it's pretty clear that I fundamentally disagree with you, and your very narrow, black and white deletionist views, that violate so many policies. Your persistent violating of WP:BLUDGEON and WP:POINTY doesn't make you right. I'm not sure how you have so much time to interrupt the project; you need to limit youself to a single response, rather than the endless game playing. Nfitz (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. This is a modern day athlete from a country where online sources are readily available. I did a search in Seychelles sources but found nothing outside of a brief mentions in match reports and those reports date from the start of his career in 2011. If someone has better luck, I'm more than happy to change my !vote. Alvaldi (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT as there are no sources providing significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahecht (talk • contribs) 15:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources have been presented that rise to the level of meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced page that is supported by WP:FOOTY and WP:GNG, and who plays the highest level of football for an independent nation, an absolute joke that it's being considered to be deleted.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is he notable when he can't even get a single piece of significant coverage in the only national paper in his home country, let alone any other media outlet? Alvaldi (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- How are you and I supposed to get access to Seychellois newspapers? It obviously exists, I just don't have access to it. And this push for GNG is pointless, we have tons of third party references and databases that exist to cover the clearly notable player, but arbitrary rules to ignore it to push a narrative. Notability requirements are racist.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Seychelles Nation is the only major newspaper in the Seychelles, it has an online archive dating from 2005, six years before Lablache's career started. It has not one single significant source on him. Alvaldi (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NSPORTS may presume the person is likely notable, but that isn't the same as actually being notable. It's one of those rule of thumb things that don't always hold up. In this case, there aren't multiple, significant coverages in independent sources, which is the actual policy via GNG. Who knows, maybe next week that will change, maybe not, but for now, it doesn't pass our criteria for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree fundamentally, the player is obviously notable for playing in the NATIONAL team of his independent nation. It doesn't take more than 1 brain cell to acknowledge that making the national team for the most popular sport in the world is inherently notable, but I'm sure Wikipedia editors will perform mental gymnastics for why that isn't the case.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because there is no WP:SIGCOV. There are no mental gymnastics needed. BilledMammal (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no such thing as "inherently notable". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - And that's where you are fundamentally wrong. Just playing for any national team, especially by making just one or two short substitute appearances, doesn't mean one is notable. That's just not what notability means. Notability is actually achieved by being covered in press. That's not the case for this person because Seychelles is the sort of national team that is happy to be able to field eleven players, most of whom play this sport for fun in their spare time. There level of play is nowhere near meaningful.T v x1 13:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played for their nation at the highest level in the most popular sport in the world. This is not someone who played a few mins in a professional league then disappeared. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you joking?? At the highest level of the most popular sport??? Seychelles have never come anywhere close to the highest level in international football. And if that isn’t bad enough, this player has appeared in barely two of their matches. One in a leg of the first round of qualifying for the African Nations Cup and another in a minor sub-continental cup. That’s nowhere near the highest level. Seychelles is the type of national team that is happy just to be able to field a full squad of players. Only very rarely one of them will be professional. Just playing for such a national team says little about ability, let alone notability. It’s clear you have no clue whatsoever what you’re talking about.T v x1 20:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Highest level, refers to the competition - and surely a continental qualifier is just that. Nfitz (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as international footballer. As Joseph says above, there is likely to be offline coverage - if anybody wants to pay for me to go to the Seychelles to research I'll be more than happy to... Giant Snowman 12:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that’s not what Joseph said. They said there might be some offline coverage. The evidence however suggests that there likely isn’t any such significant coverage. The more I think about this, the more I am in disbelief that an actual Wikipedia administrator made a comment that demonstrates such an immense lack of sense of reality and of understanding of the word "notability".T v x1 19:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either Procedural close to give time for the current issues regarding NSPORTS to be settled or Delete/Redirect/other alternative to deletion (but not "keep") due to the lack of SIGCOV, which is the fall back criteria until such time that NSPORTS/NFOOTY gets fixed. Those saying that playing at the international level for a team that has never even come close to qualifying for the World Cup - or even the Africa Cup of Nations - is the "highest level in the most popular sport in the world", are being a bit silly. However, it is also a typical example of WP:ITSIMPORTANT, based on personal opinion of what is "significant" or not (and, as the previous sentence demonstrates, hopefully, it is very much possible to make the opposite argument). Even if this part of NFOOTY hadn't been repealed (as a purely participation based criteria), meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept., and if the only thing we can say about a subject is "they played football for X and Y", then there's not much point having an article about them at this time. Whether it should be outright deleted or redirected to a list or something is another question. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An international footballer. I think there are sources, just not on the internet. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you present such sources, or at least credible indication of the existence of such sources, your argument is nothing more than an ipse dixit and isn't very convincing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the comments that Joseph2302 and GiantSnowman made. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those are also assertions without proof. You ever heard of the proverbial teapot? You should also see Wikipedia:But there must be sources! RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like GS said, If anybody wants to pay for me to go to Seychelles to research I'll be more than happy to. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the point of the SNG - the presumption of proof. And since it was stated in the RfC and closure that there won't be grandfathering, it is irrelevant in this case that there is a change of guideline. --SuperJew (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The presumption of proof is both A) rebuttable and B) not an indefinite delay (in the ideal case, the sources should have been found before beginning to write the article, not blindly assumed to exist), and given the recency of this player's career, and the fact that apparently the only national newspaper doesn't have anything about him, it is not particularly a strong one, due to this absence of coverage after a search (it's not like if it were a player from 50 years ago, where one might expect there to be some coverage in old sources which might indeed be only accessible offline). And if there is "no grandfathering", then those voting to !keep here should be doing the exact opposite, because there is no grandfathering and existing articles are not exempt from the requirements. WP:NRVE, and if no evidence of these sources which "surely exist" can be found, then sadly this looks more like a case of personal prejudice about what is notable and what is not (WP:ILIKEIT/WP:ITSIMPORTANT) than a rational analysis of the situation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder that there is no deadline and that AfD isn't cleanup. --SuperJew (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There is no deadline bu which time we need to have all articles, an article being deleted is not a problem in the long run as it can be recreated if sources actually exist or appear. Not having this "article" right now isn't an issue. And Afd isn't cleanup, that's why the nomination is for deletion, not for cleanup. Anything else? Fram (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn’t mean articles are permanently safeguarded from deletion. And no-one is requesting cleanup. If a subject is just not suitable for an article here it just isn’t suitable.T v x1 19:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very cleary the subject doesn’t meet WP:GNG. You cannot indefinitely claim that offline significant coverage exists, when there is no reasonable evidence it does.T v x1 20:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic fails WP:SPORTCRIT. The "significant coverage" that "is likely to exist" according to NFOOTY hasn't been shown to exist. Avilich (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG with dozens of references of his league (let alone national team) play in national coverage. The suggestion that the African Cup of Nations isn't at the highest level of play is offensive. Nfitz (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There is currently one reference provided that mentions his play - and it is a passing mention. Can you provide WP:THREE of these dozens of references that count towards WP:GNG? BilledMammal (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then the article should be improved, not deleted. We don't judge an article on the current sourcing, but on what's available. Nfitz (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Nfitz: Apologies, I was unclear. If you found significant coverage, I was asking you to provide WP:THREE examples, as I have been unable to find any. BilledMammal (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - See below. Nfitz (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        The google search? I can't see any significant coverage; could you link it directly? BilledMammal (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I did link it directly - right underneath this, in the response to Fram. Nfitz (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        You linked the Google search, not examples of significant coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nfitz: care to elaborate? Your vote seems distinctly at odds with what is actually available (even the "dozens" of Google hits are not "dozens of references of his league play in national coverage", they are things like this non-entity, this translated non-entity, this empty source, ... Oh, and he didn't play at the African Cup of Nations, he played in a qualifier. Fram (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was exclusively referring to what can be quickly found in the Seychelles Nation (national coverage). I'm sure you've all done the same Google search. Nfitz (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about the quantity of sources, but the type of them. The references you refer to fall under WP:ROUTINE coverage and do not establish notability.Tvx1 13:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see the relevance of WP:ROUTINE here - it's a criteria for the notability of events, not people. Nfitz (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ROUTINE is called out as a criteria in WP:SPORTBASIC, which applies here. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 19:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which would be a good argument for not making articles for each of their matches. Netherless, the criteria is WP:SPORTCRIT not WP:ROUTINE. Nfitz (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And WP:SPORTCRIT specifically calls out WP:ROUTINE in the third bullet. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 15:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While the subject may have played for their national team, they lack the WP:SIGCOV required of a standalone article. GauchoDude (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, consensus guideline states that having played for a top level international football team confers notability. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GNG takes precedence over WP:NFOOTBALL Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; merge/redirect to an appropriate list would be a good ATD but it does not appear that such a list currently exists. The presumption of notability offered by NFOOTY is very weak for many countries, even for internationals, and this is one of them. Per NSPORT, the guideline that ultimately needs to be met is GNG and this fails because we simply do not have any significant coverage, which we need in order to write an article (per WHYN). Without it, we have a two sentence directory/statistical listing stub that violates NOTDIR/NOTSTATS. It has been claimed that local offline sources may exist, but there is simply no reason to believe that to be true because there are many local sources available online covering the entire time period of his career to date, and no significant coverage has been found. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not convinced that any of the sources presented constitute WP:SIGCOV. In the absence of sigcov, we cannot maintain an article about any topic; NSPORTS is no exception and it's high time that we stopped pretending it was one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:04, 16 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 11:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remy De Ketelaere[edit]

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

No evidence could be found of meeting WP:GNG at all. Fram (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same as Lablache; no coverage that would suggest they meet WP:GNG. Article also currently fails WP:PRIMARY. BilledMammal (talk) 09:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. A search didn't turn up much other that an interview on his teams website. Alvaldi (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time that we stopped having sports database entries masquerading as articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:25, 10 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 to delete, and no reasonable expectation that a further relisting would generate a consensus. Whether one or more merges are in order can be discussed separately. BD2412 T 02:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Dynamics[edit]

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

Never expected an article with primarily product updates and text such as "With this update, Microsoft Dynamics 365 has welcomed integration with Microsoft Teams search box" to be called "abuse of SD", but here we are. I am unable to find independent sourcing that's not a rehash of Microsoft press release and specs on which to build a more neutral article. Can't identify a great merger target either. Star Mississippi 15:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Computing. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Microsoft software - article is essentially a guide and is a gross violation of both WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTIINFO. While it's perfectly fine for tech-related article to mention how the tech works (like for example, articles on operating systems, like Linux or Microsoft Windows, this article in particular has a promotional tone to it, reads mostly like a guidebook and is just keeping a list of all of the different updates, features and whatnot, which is a big no no even for articles on software. The difference with articles like Linux and Microsoft Windows is that those articles actually mention the real world significance they've had and have entire sections dedicated to their historical impact. This article on the other hand is just more or less having an article about Microsoft Dynamics just for the sake of having an article on Microsoft Dynamics. Once you remove every bit and piece of content that makes this article more like a guidebook/promotion, you no longer have an article and there's nothing that can be added to this article that would make it not just a guidebook/promotion. And any argument for keep would be whataboutism, which I anticipate happening given I've seen AFD's of this nature get derailed to death by a bunch of users that'll just jump the bandwagon arguing to death why their favorite article should be kept without substantiating their argument beyond the ever so common WP:ITSUSEFUL.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Abuse may have been bit harsh, but it was clearly not in scope for a speedy deletion under G11: If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Trim all the corporate/promotional speak and make it a stub? It's clearly a popular group of products that anyone working in finance would have heard about, even if the average person knows Microsoft for Office and Windows. I'm getting about 400k people mentioning in some fashion it in their LinkedIn profiles, mentions in lots of books and journals. EditorInTheRye (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With so many books written on the subject, this is an easy choice. I agree with everyone else that this can use some cleanup and updates. gidonb (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge the other articles on various editions of what looks closely related: Microsoft Dynamics AX Microsoft Dynamics 365 Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central (merge proposal for months) Microsoft Dynamics 365 for Finance and Operations each of those are even lower on the notability threshold. However, one neutral article (without the bullets and buzzwords promoting features) would seem worth it. W Nowicki (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Microsoft software though that needs a refresh too. The product umbrella is really wide; the individual articles that should be improved. The article would get really long if we combined into one article. I'm working on merging the Dynamics NAV into Dynamics 365 Business Central and trying to trim the ads. ShadowXVII (talk) 06:33, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Microsoft Dynamics 365 is a duplicate of this page as well. ShadowXVII (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but cannot follow the "umbrella" analogy. If we redirect to the list, then all the text would be missing, the useful history along with the marketing. I was trying to say that if we removed all the marketing (lists of features, etc.) then one article on all of the Dynamics family would be likely to be kept. It looks like quite a bit of work has been done now in that direction, but still way too much duplication with, say Microsoft Dynamics 365 Business Central Microsoft Dynamics 365 etc. Maybe you might be proposing a compromise of merging into two (or three?) articles for all the Microsoft Dynamics * articles, if they are cases of very different technology that are given a similar sounding name to make them appear more integrated? That might also work. W Nowicki (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested, seems the best choice. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EditorInTheRye. It's very important and popular group of software. .GorgonaJS (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should be kept, even if out of date. Important software 90.243.57.93 (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable software with wide coverage in reliable sources, and although the article needs improvement, AfD is not cleanup. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, widely used product, intensely obviously notable, though as mentioned above a merger between the different flavours of Dynamics would not go astray. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 16 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 longer speedy, but deleted due to copyvio concerns raised within the discussion, and "too large" is not a compelling reason to override those concerns. Star Mississippi 01:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of aircraft accidents at Eglin Air Force Base[edit]

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

List almost entirely consisting of not notable aviation accidents or incidents. Wikipedia is not a memorial too. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any policy based reason why this shouldn't be retained, it seems adequately referenced and is a valid (though over-detailed) list. Mztourist (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Consensus is most military aviation accidents and incident, because they are much more frequent than those of the commercial variety, aren't notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Consensus is that most individual military aviation accidents and incidents aren't sufficiently notable to have their own pages. Where there are numerous military accidents at or around one base you either put them on the base page, or, as here, put them on a separate page. Mztourist (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - That still is not a good reason to keep a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of routine and overall mostly insignificant accidents. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator has not suggested a merge target for any of the content here, which appears to largely be verfiable. Aviation incidents are generally noted somewhere on Wikipedia whether it is on the relevant aircraft article or the airport article. The nominator has also suggested at least some of the incidents are notable with the statement "consisting of not notable aviation accidents or incidents". Coverage of these notable incidents certainly shouldn't be removed from Wikipedia and should instead be split off into separate articles. NemesisAT (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST. Nobody outside the military bureaucracy keeps such a list. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - valid split from article on the air base. Too large to merge back. Mjroots (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Very Selective Merge Well-referenced trivia is still trivia at the end of the day, and if we can delete pilot articles because their only claim to notability is crashing, why should we retain an article about those crashes? As to the notability of certain crashes claim, why not add any non-duplicated information into the relevant article about the pilot or the aircraft? Intothat darkness 13:50, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the notability but if kept this list needs a lot of review. The creator was indefinitely blocked for copyvios and has a CCI open. --Rs chen 7754 19:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That information is verifiable is not sufficient in and of itself to justify its inclusion in Wikipedia as a standalone article. NLIST asks that there are multiple reliable secondary sources covering the list topic as a set. I have not seen any evidence any such sources exist about aircraft accidents at Eglin Air Force Base (and any long-standing air force base will have had many accidents just by virtue of being active for a long time). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Large amount of detail that is too large to merge back to article about Eglin AFB without a split in a few months. Gusfriend (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When valid information won't fit in the main article, you make a split off article for it. Dream Focus 03:51, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST and WP:CSC. Jclemens (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What sources convince you this meets NLIST? Because I'd like to see them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." indicates that sourcing is required to establish that criterion? Jclemens (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of those purposes are met here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you know the meaning of the word informational, but are misapplying it in order to reach that conclusion. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can assume whatever you want. The fact of the matter is that we can find sources for just about any list like this. I can find sources to make a list of accidents on the street I live on. That doesn't make such a list notable. "Recognized informational purpose" is too vague to have any meaning, that argument could be made about literally anything. The definition of informational is "relating to or characterized by facts about something; providing information." That descriptor could be applied to every single article on this website, including many that have been deleted. There has been no refutation of the arguments I made in my !vote, so it will remain as is. It is a dark day if Wikipedians are deciding that notability no longer matters. Though I recognize at least you have cited policies in your keep !vote, something the other !votes to keep have neglected. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Trainsandotherthings. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as not encyclopedic, per WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROTM. Accidents, apparently (as this list shows), happen all the time. Without a good secondary source to give some useful content about this, this is an original compilation (hence, basically OR) of routine events in an almost indiscriminate fashion (exhaustive listings of non-notables should be limited to much smaller sets than this - see WP:CSC). Without such a secondary source, this also fails WP:NLIST, since "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables." (on top of the NOT issues already identified). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the above is still a very valid concern, but has been superseeded by something more obvious below.
Keep Per NemesisAT SuperSkaterDude45 16:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nemesis hasn't presented a valid keep rationale. Beyond the irrelevance of the lack of a merge target (maybe because this shouldn't be merged to a single article); their argument that the few notable incidents "should instead be split off into separate articles" in fact seems a rather good argument why this list shouldn't be kept as is. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Documented, so notable enough. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is about as total a misunderstanding of Wikipedia guidelines as can be had. WP:NOT (in particular WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDATABASE) and WP:N are stricter standards than WP:V. I could also verifiably document "Car accidents in [insert town here]" for quite a few towns. That would not make it a valid list, because list of routine and unsignificant events (and the vast majority of the entries on the list, even those with tragic consequences, whether you like it or not, are exactly such incidents, mostly covered in local news in the days after the event) do not belong in an encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT (in particular WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDATABASE) and WP:N are stricter standards than WP:V. This just isn't true. Wikipedia:Core content policies and the box at the side of that page state that WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR are our core content policites whereas WP:NOT is listed under other content policies. WP:N is a guideline, not a policy. NemesisAT (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:5P1 is the very first pillar (and WP:NOT is also policy). And yes, those, along with WP:N, are stricter standards than WP:V, and WP:V itself says that "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". Something can meet WP:V but still very much fail standards for inclusion, as is obviously the case here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On top of that, when you have things which are so obviously copyvios that you don't even need to have access to the original source to compare, that speaks a lot about the encyclopedic value (or lack thereof) of an article which is just an indiscriminate compilation of routine newspaper reports... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE per WP:G12. Looking at the page history reveals that there are copyvios (content which is obviously copied as is from press articles) right from the very first version. Creator was blocked for other copyright issues, and sadly this article does not seem to have escaped that. Given that every single version contains infringing material, this fits the definition of G12, and beyond the time and effort which would be required to fix it, on top of the existing issues, it is simply impractical. If this kind of list should exist in the future, WP:TNT would be the only reasonable approach anyways. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Copyvio is a major problem with the article. There is potential BLP issues with some entries (See November 5, 1999), many of the entries are sourced to a personal website joebaugher.com that would fail WP:RS and there is the use of other unreliable sources in the article too. Not to mention accidents that didn't even happen at Eglin (Would you believe Utah and Nevada? How about Antigua???? See May 28, 1991 if you don't believe me. The title of the article is 'at Eglin'.) and the consensus is the WP Aviation isn't to name to the deceased (unless WP notable) and accidents must take place at the airport, on approach or just after takeoff. This article needs WP:TNT even if were kept. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I second the above motion to speedy delete As I point out in this talk page post[8], there has been a copyvio in this article since its creation....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The incident of 5 Nov 1999 has been copied and rearranged from the Aerospace.org website, while the entry for 18 June 1996 is copied almost verbatim from the Joebaugher.com website. Presumably there are many other such violations. Much of the sourcing itself is dubious, and the topic doesn't appear to meet NLIST as a notable grouping. Avilich (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this at WP:CP. The copyright with list items is often dicey, since non-creative compilations [and a list of aircraft accidents at a given airport is unlikely to be creative] aren't copyrightable but verbatim copying from other websites is infringing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No question its a copyvio @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Let's go to the very first edition of the article[9] entry 13 January 1953 which in quotes says= An Eglin (AFB) F-86 Saber [sic] jet crash landed on Range 51 here today left pilot Capt. Robert G. Loomis alive but injured. The airman is in the Eglin hospital with a back injury and undetermined internal injuries. That is a word for word copy from a news source and it has been in every edition of the article. The article creator has been indefinitely banned for this type of violations....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20200212 article, WP:PDEL applies. But that's a seven day process. MER-C 16:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the speed, please don't put it back. Let the AFD play out. Jeepday (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No question its a copyvio @Jeepday: Let's go to the very first edition of the article[10] entry 13 January 1953 which in quotes says= An Eglin (AFB) F-86 Saber [sic] jet crash landed on Range 51 here today left pilot Capt. Robert G. Loomis alive but injured. The airman is in the Eglin hospital with a back injury and undetermined internal injuries. That is a word for word copy from a news source And you really think a article corrupt from day one is not fit for speedy deletion. If so, you shouldn't be an administrator. Read G12....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WilliamJE hit the nail on the head here. I don't care where you fall in the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum, copyvio must never be kept. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should take this to ANI. Not 1 but 3 administrators have shirked their responsibilities. If they refuse to deal with a clear G12, they shouldn't be administrators. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've again removed the G12 tag, please don't re-add it, it isn't needed for a few different reasons. For one, the article has already been blanked and listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2022 March 11. If an article is listed at copyright problems for over 7 days, it can be deleted. This is usually done in cases where the copyvio has existed in the article since the first revision, or if the article was created and primarily edited by a user with a CCI currently open on them. In this case, both are true, as the article has copied from at least some of its sources since the first revision as you have stated above, and the article's creator has a massive CCI under Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20200212. Given the size and complexity of this article, along with it currently being the subject of an AfD, blanking it for further investigation instead of deleting it on the spot under G12 is preferable. In fact, it is advised by the G12 template itself; This criterion applies only in unequivocal cases, where there is no free-content material on the page worth saving and no later edits requiring attribution – for more complicated situations, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations." This isn't exactly a clear G12 like you say it is- no URL is provided, instead this afd is cited, and it's not explicitly shown here that the entire article, or the majority of it, has been a copyvio from the first revision. I have deleted 100s of articles under G12 over the years, and have also declined a fair share of them as well. I have spent 1000s and 1000s of hours keeping Wikipedia free of copyright issues. I appreciate you caring about copyright issues, but I do not think it is fair for you to threaten to take those admins to Ani for reasonably declining the G12. The copyright violations will be dealt with, the article just doesn't need to be deleted right now. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk🌵CCI guide} 01:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious copyvio.--Darwinek (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:G12 Stifle (talk) 14:26, 16 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Baptiste Daguet[edit]

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

Article subject scrapes by WP:NFOOTY. Consensus is to delete when WP:GNG is failed, as is the case here with little NFOOTY appearances. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage, article is sourced only to a database in violation of WP:SPORTCRIT. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks any significant coverage. We need to stop having sports stat pages masquerading as articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 11 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gagandeep Singh (cricketer, born 1991)[edit]

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

Totally non-notable cricketer who hasn't played at first-class, List A, or Twenty20 level so fails WP:NCRIC and by extension WP:GNG. I note after leaving a note about the notability of cricketers on the article creators talkpage, that they have tried to pull the wool over our eyes by inserting "three year first-class career" into the article; this person has never played first-class cricket. This article was also declined at AfC. StickyWicket (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 06:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 06:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that WP:NSPORTS has gone through some changes recently. Redacting vote until I've read it. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 15:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. NSPORTS aside, this individual is completely non-notable via GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the coverage rises to the level of passing significant coverage guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the cricket guidelines and there's nothing significant in a search suggesting significant coverage. No suitable redirect here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, as well as the current version of WP:NCRIC (pre any changes). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:05, 15 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zahoor Ahmed Shah Almadani[edit]

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

Poorly-referenced stub on non-notable academic. Sources cited are social media ones, and a search finds nothing better (I tried a few different renderings of the name; if someone can search better and produce solid sources, please add them to the article). As it stands, fails WP:GNG / WP:NACADEMIC. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:18, 2 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!} 05:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I failed in locating any reliable-sourced significant content in native language for this person, and there's not much in English either. It fails GNG and there's no indication for WP:NACADEMIC of being met. Notability is not inherited either. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 06:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Probably qualifies for A7. 37.111.217.231 (talk) 16:46, 13 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 11:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leonidas Morakis[edit]

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

Appears to be a hoax or an error - the correct sportsperson is Nikolaos Morakis. Ineligible for prod due to previous AFD. No sources are identifiable. BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Listed as Leonidas in Mallon's book. That appears to be an error, with Nikolaos the correct given name. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 10:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article that has existed without sources for over a decade. I have to admit that I am less than convinced that the correct name person actual meets any reasonable inclusion criteria, but that is a different issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 9 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 merge to Gig worker. The term "gig economy" serves as a redirect to the said target. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uberisation[edit]

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

While this term has been used by reliable sources, it most often is used in quotes and is not a topic for an encyclopedia Country20 (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems to me that the article describes a process connected to the gig economy to a degree where it would be better to turn it into a redirect and merge some of its contents into a new section on that page, rather than keep them separated and live or completely remove the current page and the sources it uses. YuriNikolai (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Economics. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gig economy This article has a lot of material that would be helpful in that article, and makes a lot more sense in that context. If this discussion ends in merge, please tag me and I will personally do it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oiyarbepsy – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gig economy: Closely related to Gig economy, no reason for this to be separate. 15 (talk) 21:46, 10 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 03:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburg, Utah[edit]

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

A typical GNIS stub, enlivened by a claim I cannot verify. At any rate, the topos tell an interesting story: up until about 1980, they show "Pittsburg" and a few widely scattered buildings, but from then on they show a loop coming out of the main road to the west that is labelled "Roadside Park", the cluster of buildings moves to the east side of the road, and the "Pittsburg" label is replaced by "Hoovers". The earliest aerial is from the mid 1950s and only shows one building, on the east side; this indeed becomes surrounded by other buildings, but GMaps informs us that these buildings are the Hoover River Resort, which if I read the website correctly started out as that single building shown in the aerial. And there is another wrinkle: on the east side of the river there used to be a D&RGW rail line that was abandoned some time before 1980. "Pittsburg" is a ridiculously common element of railroad names, so I haven't been able to confirm it, but I suspect that the name originally indicated a rail point. At any rate, I haven't been able to confirm a town here. Mangoe (talk) 02:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Utah. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is the location of the property of the erstwhile Pittsburgh-Utah Potash Company founded in 1916, as detailed on Callaghan 1937, p. 126 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCallaghan1937 (help). Handily, on Callaghan 1937, p. 96 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCallaghan1937 (help) there is a map, with the Pittsburgh alunite deposit marked as #10, at the junction of Deer Creek and the Sevier, but in Sevier County rather than Piute County. (Unhelpfully, Google conflates Callaghan 1937 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCallaghan1937 (help) and Vanderwilt 1937 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFVanderwilt1937 (help), which you'll need to know if you go looking for it.) Gale & Hicks 1917 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFGaleHicks1917 (help) said:
This company has constructed a railroad spur about 3,600 feet from the main line at Belknap siding to its mill site and has laid a pipe line from the mill site to a dam built on Deer Creek, which gives a 60-foot fall.
Yet another "unincorporated community" falsehood by Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Callaghan, Eugene (1937). Preliminary Report on the alunite deposites of the Marysvale region, Utah. Vol. 886. U.S. Government Printing Office.
- Vanderwilt, John W. (1937). Geology and Mineral Deposits of the Snowmass Mountain Area, Gunnison County, Colorado. Vol. 884. U.S. Government Printing Office.
- Gale, Hoyt S.; Hicks, W. B. (1917). "Miscellaneous developments in Marysvale District". Potash in 1917. Mineral Resources of the United States.
Commment: Looks like it was a mine per local early 20th century newspapers in Piute County. [11] (1918 picnic at the Pittsburg mine). And some people must have lived at the location, which is why GNIS calls it a populated place. That leads to occasional references to someone being from there.[12]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Location is only notable at the local level, if that. TH1980 (talk) 01:46, 13 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 03:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miki ratsula[edit]

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

non-notable musician, with lots of puff. 晚安 (トークページ) 02:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 晚安 (トークページ) 02:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article looks like an advertisement. Lacks significant coverage in reliable multiple sources which are independent of the subject. DMySon (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The article is dependent on ref-bombing to promotional sites and softball interviews from LGBTQ publications, which are fairly numerous but uniformly non-critical and introductory. The musician has one noteworthy mention in Pop Matters ([13]), but it still brief and the nature of coverage so far does not meet our significant and reliable coverage. There is lots of promotion out there, and good luck with that, but not suitable for Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can do better. As usual, getting a musician into Wikipedia is not simply a matter of referencing their music to its own presence on a streaming platform like Deezer, YouTube or Spotify as evidence that it exists — it's a matter of referencing their music to third-party media coverage about them and their music as evidence that their significance has been externally validated by sources without a vested interest in the musician's career. But streaming links are more than half of the footnotes here, and even what's left is still mostly Twitter tweets and blogs and PR self-published by Miki's own management — and what we've got for genuine WP:GNG-building media coverage in reliable and notability-supporting sources is one short blurb from Pop Matters, which isn't enough all by itself. There may well be a stronger notability claim, and better notability-assisting coverage from real media to support it, in the future, but neither the substance nor the sourcing here are already enough today. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 10 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 merge to Heraclitus#Influence. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antisthenes (Heraclitean)[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage - this philosopher is only mentioned by name in a few classical sources and there does not appear to be any additional coverage or analysis of them in any modern, secondary sources. Note that this is NOT Antisthenes the Cynic. - car chasm (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Heraclitus#Influence. The article's content could have a better home there. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:CFD:F514:CDE6:9187 (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge as per the above. Doesn't seem notable enough for an article, but the few lines in there seem encyclopedia-worthy. YuriNikolai (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. - car chasm (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems fine here. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:52, 16 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 01:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tomicah Tillemann[edit]

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

An advisor/speechwriter for notables but as far as direct notability, little more than brief mentions in independent sources. The creator of this article, User:TEDTL (and its other primary contributor, User:Osprey23), is likely Tillemann himself or is closely connected, contributing only Tillemann-related edits to the encyclopedia. Father Goose (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not realising WP:GNG policy. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Vaco98 (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Colorado, and Connecticut. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:27, 9 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) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hasibe Çerko[edit]

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

Fails notability, WP:AUTHOR Juggyevil (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Juggyevil (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources insufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I really don't think a WP:BEFORE was even attempted here, there isn't even an attempt to explain why the sources in the article are insufficient.
- TEİS: this source, used in the article already, is a reliable source written by a scholar. It also cites two different critiques of Çerko's work.
- This journal has an article about one of Çerko's books.
- An offline article about the short story writing of Çerko.
- Here is another article about her in a literary publication.
So yeah, the sources are more than sufficient. --GGT (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't speak the language, but the sources presented by GGT appear to be directly detailing the subject and her works. I'll have to AGF these sources meet independent RS, but the appearance and links appear to check out. Very difficult to find English sources on a subject only covered in Turkish. BusterD (talk) 21:09, 8 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) 01:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the new sources that are revealed now. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:35, 9 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 01:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Club de Golf Novo Sancti Petri[edit]

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

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:22, 9 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 01:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edmond Cullinan[edit]

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

Cant see why he is notable. Supposed academic. Potentially notable. Write for the Furrow but sources seem to be primary. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 00:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete While I was able to find sources, all of them seemed to be primary. This violates SIGCOV, which requires sources to be "independent of the subject." The books are also not notable, as they do not have coverage in reliable sources. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:CFD:F514:CDE6:9187 (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found and added references to three published reviews of two books (two in the same journal as each other and the third apparently only offline) to the article. It's not quite enough to convince me of WP:AUTHOR notability, but I could change my mind if more turn up. Note that many of the things listed in the publications section of the article are not actually books. ——David Eppstein (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't turn up anything more than what David Eppstein already found. -- asilvering (talk) 07:10, 12 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.