< September 12	September 14 >

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. We can't redirect to a redirect. Should the status of List of... change, this redirect can be created as part of the editorial process. Star Mississippi 00:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zafar Mahmood[edit]

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

Zafar Mahmood

Cricketer whose only reference is a database entry (no longer permitted as the only reference) and for whom no claim is made that would satisfy general notability because nothing is said about what third parties have written. Also does not satisfy the current version of cricket notability because there is no indication that he played test cricket or otherwise played internationally. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NCRICKET. Elbatli (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A reasonable career of 16 FC matches, but in a basic internet search, I'm not seeing anything to suggest a GNG pass. There may be coverage offline or in non-English language sources though. Not seeing a suitable redirect here as there's no main team he's played for. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Khairpur cricketers - which is itself a redirect for now until someone puts the graft in to develop it. 13 of his 16 matches were for Khairpur and he played for the side over an 8 year period. That's a decent enough compromise for me to suggest that that's the best redirect target in a case such as this. Ideally we'd merge a note to that list per WP:ATD-M, but that might have to wait. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:17, 14 September 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 West Boca Raton Community High School. Star Mississippi 00:40, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WBCHS[edit]

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

I find no indication that the acronym WBCHS is used either for white blood cells or for the West Boca Raton Community High School. In fact, a Google search finds "West Brooklyn Community High School" (no article on Wikipedia) and that's basically it. Pichpich (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to Redirect to High School When I originally ran into this page, it redirected to White Blood Cell. I wanted to preserve the original redirect without ruffling any feathers, but if no sources are saying it, let's get rid of that part.
However, multiple sources (see Active Kids, Active Communities, Events.com, the principal of the school himself, and Active.com) all use the abbreviation. I see no reason to remove the redirect for the high school. InvadingInvader (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (weak). I added a link to the NYC school, and per the search results above by InvadingInvader, it looks like a valid alt for the Florida school even though it is missing a letter. I can't find any connection to White blood cell, so that should be removed. Not doing so yet to give others a chance to find a reason to keep that entry. MB 16:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to West Boca Raton Community High School, which is the only notable topic that this acronym could conceivably refer to. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:29, 18 September 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 Desi Arnaz. Star Mississippi 00:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Mack Hirsch[edit]

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

An editor even writes in the first paragraph that she is best known for being married to a celebrity. That in and of itself makes her not notable. BostonMensa (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. BostonMensa (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article was missing information. She was a co-founder of important racetrack and a significant figure in thoroughbred racing. Perhaps that would meet the significance requirement? Intrepid203 (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder I’d that is emough to warrant an individual article Maddy can’t just be mentioned in Desi’s reticle. BostonMensa (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator is mistaken. Being married to a celebrity does not "in and of itself makes her not notable." Quite the opposite, in fact: a relationship with a very famous person often leads to fame. pburka (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
fame and notability are two totally different things.
I am not mistaken. I have seen many people say the same exactly the same thing in other discussions and it is always under the same conditions. Usually from what I remember, it is abut a child but whatever the relation, the theme is notability is not inherited.

and btw, we are allowed to disagree but saying I am mistaken implies we are discussing a fact and mot an opinion. Simply because we disagree doesn’t mean I am mistaken. BostonMensa (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you're thinking of the essay at WP:NOTINHERITED, the gist of which is that notability isn't automatically inherited. You wrote that her marriage "in and of itself makes her not notable." I stand by my position that this is incorrect and I think such a position is contradictory to WP:5P2. pburka (talk) 13:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am thinking of multiple comments in discussions like this where the article’s authors may or may not have explicitly said “so and so is best known as the spouse/child/parent of this other so and so” but the article was not any different than this one when I nominated it. And while I do not remember verbatim what people said in their comments, let alone who said it and which articles were being discussed, I do remember the common theme of celebrity by association/celebrity not inherited. BostonMensa (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that proximity to celebrity doesn't automatically confer notability, but your statement was much stronger: perhaps stronger than you intended. You said her relationship "makes her not notable". Did you mean to say the relationship "does not make her notable"? pburka (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:INVALIDBIO guideline includes, That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A), and I think the emphasis on whether significant coverage exists is a helpful focus for these types of discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant exactly want I said, no more and no less. Reread the part where I said that at the time I nominated the article, an editor said she was “best known” for being married to Desi Arnaz. A lot of women at the time might have been envious n but being married to an entertainer in and of itself is not notable. I can’t be any clearer than that. You can continue to discuss it all you want but this is the last time I a, commenting on the subject. Other people can weigh in if they want. BostonMensa (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have not found sufficient independent and reliable support for notability; for example, in the NYT obit for Desi Arnaz, she is only mentioned at the end of the article as one of his surviving relatives, and then the NYT issued a correction noting she died in 1985. From the Clement L. Hirsch article, I found a brief announcement of her marriage and divorce in Time magazine; she is not named as an Oak Tree Racing Association co-founder in Clement Hirsch's LAT obit. The book cited in her article is not particularly in-depth coverage about her (primarily at pp. 273-274, then some gossip/speculation related to Desi, on a few other pages). I have no objection to a redirect to Desi Arnaz, where there is some information about her. Beccaynr (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all this information, very helpful. Could someone help set up a redirect to Desi Arnaz while keeping some of the information on this current page? Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that. Intrepid203 (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I considered suggesting a selective merge of content to Desi Arnaz, but based on available sources, there does not appear to be independent and reliable coverage of her role in thoroughbred racing or the Oak Tree Racing Association to support merging that content - in her article, the source cited refers to the role of her former husband, not her. Also, a redirect is one of the possible common outcomes at AfD, so it might be created after this AfD ends, or could be requested afterwards. Beccaynr (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, only notable as a side note in Desi Arnaz's life. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect sounds like great solution! Intrepid203 (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have never figured out why you need to redirect rather than delete or merge. But either way, someone interested enough can incorporate the information amd citations to Desi’s page. BostonMensa (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, redirect is probably better. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:45, 18 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Bassett's Tour 2022[edit]

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

Article about a concert tour, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NTOUR. As always, concert tours are not all "inherently" notable enough to have Wikipedia articles just because they're happening -- the notability test for a concert tour is not passed just by verifying that the tour exists, but by demonstrating some form of cultural or artistic significance "in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms" (and that's a direct quote from NTOUR.)
But this is heavily reference bombed to sources that are not establishing notability at all -- out of 23 footnotes, 15 are to Twitter tweets, Instagram posts or Joshua Bassett's own self-published website about himself, another is to an indiscriminate setlist database that still isn't a notability maker, and two more just glancingly namecheck Joshua Bassett in passing without being about him or the tour in any non-trivial sense. And of the just five footnotes that are actually both about the tour and from real GNG-building media, they all just basically verify the tour's existence without saying anything that would satisfy the notability criteria that NTOUR is looking for. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't even notable enough for the artist's main page. Retinalsummer (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nom, most of the references are social media posts and things from Bassets own pubicity, neither of which are RS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not found sufficient coverage in independent and reliable sources to support for notability.Elbatli (talk) 13:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France, Germany, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at this time. gidonb (talk) 20:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marinus Larsen[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence this person served in the Utah state House, but even if he had he fails WP:NPOL. I would also say that two tertiary sources by themselves are not enough to establish notability. The provided sources are also missing inline citations and I cannot figure out where to access them online so cannot validate anything. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think he passes NPOL, "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels." due to the two terms in the Utah State Legislature. TBH that has more to do with NPOL mission creep than the notability of this subject, but he does pass NPOL. Also note that you can pass NPOL and still not be notable, it only indicates that a subject is likely to be notable but they might not actually be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on NPOL cited above. A quick Google Books search shows several sources from the turn of the 20th Century confirming that he was in the Utah State Legislature at the time.[1], [2] and [3]. Banks Irk (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Religion, Denmark, and Utah. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verified as a member of the Utah legislature. Passes WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NPOL by having verifiably served as an elected member of a state legislature. Sal2100 (talk) 19:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the verification provided by Banks Irk. Star Mississippi 20:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's fine to close this as keep, thanks for finding those refs. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. You should close this AFD yourself. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Procedure_for_non-administrator_close_(nominator_withdrawal). Banks Irk (talk) 00:03, 15 September 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!} 22:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sabse Badkar Hum[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. All currents sources are database sites.

PROD removed with "de prod" with no improvements/reviews added. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTDATABASE. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fail WP:NFILM, there is no reviews, as nominator mentioned. Elbatli (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keep given recent article improvements. The movie looks terrible but the article is in acceptable shape. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gamebox 1.0[edit]

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

Tagged as unsourced for over a year, doesn't appear to have ever had sources, and my search didn't come up with any useful coverage. QuietHere (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is one reliable source review at DVDTalk [4] DonaldD23 talk to me 18:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think I saw that in my search but saw the Amazon price listing and assumed it was a sales site, so thanks for the double-check. And the review is most likely good given it's written by Rotten Tomatoes-approved critic Scott Weinberg. Just one review isn't enough to save the article but it's a start. QuietHere (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so it's a movie and not a homebrew thing... Not terribly much else, this on IGN [5], like half a review. One more source and we might be at GNG.Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found one more review, this one from Fresno Bee. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks coverage for notability Andre🚐 18:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite ready to withdraw 'cause I still want more opinions on this, but with the sources that have been added this might just squeeze by now. Thanks all for the searching, love to see a rescued article so hopefully it gets there. QuietHere (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It has two reviews and I was also able to find something to give it a bit of a production section as well. It's not the most stellar article, but I think that overall there's enough to justify a weak keep here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as three reliable sources have been added to the article so that WP:GNG is met and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:06, 16 September 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 clear that sourcing is insufficient. Happy to provide n Draft if someone wants to incubate Star Mississippi 00:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Global Project against Hate and Extremism[edit]

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

None of the secondary sources cited in the article are about the organization. They cite some reports or declarations by the organization, or people affiliated with the organization, but they do not provide significant coverage about the organization. The most "in-depth" source seems to be The Irish Times [6], which includes a full paragraph about it, but that is still not significant. So it does not pass WP:ORGCRIT. MarioGom (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Organizations, and Alabama. MarioGom (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. I reviewed every source in the article, and spend substantial time reviewing Google News search results. The nominator's description is correct. There are ~250 sources either mentioning a report by this org, or quoting someone from this org, but I can find no significant coverage on the org itself. The Irish Times source appears to be the best - and that "paragraph" is actually a single sentence. It seems reasonably likely that it will become Notable in the future, but not now. I would endorse moving the page to draft space or userspace, if someone wants to adopt it and watch for future significant coverage.
Note: Given the impressive range of sources citing this group, it is tempting to say it "deserves" an article. However Wikipedia Notability is not based on importance or worthiness. We require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to ensure we can build a proper article in compliance with all of our policies. Right now this article is almost entirely a promotional vehicle for things that the org itself has said - and that is because there is an absence of outside sourcing to use. I'm sure the article author did the best they could with what they had available, but that's not enough to comply with WP:NPOV and other policies. Imaging we had an article on a hate group, and that article was almost entirely built from things they had said about themselves. We can't build a compliant and Neutral encyclopedic article without significant coverage in independent sources. Alsee (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
”Right now this article is almost entirely a promotional vehicle for things that the org itself has said - and that is because there is an absence of outside sourcing to use” That’s just not true, at least as the article stands today. There’s only one primary source in the article, two if you count expert testimony to the US House of Reps. Both are used just once. If independent reliable sources are quoting the org, or a founder in her capacity as founder, or relaying findings of the org, that goes towards notability. That’s not what you’re calling promotion, I hope! 78.18.239.47 (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
78.18.239.47 I was using "promotional" in exactly the way you hoped I was not. We often use "promotional" in a negative sense, but I was actually attempting to avoid a negative implication here. Our neutrality policy requires that we summarize what independent reliable sources say about a subject. We lack significant coverage of that sort here. The article makes a best effort, but it's basically stuck either quoting the organization itself, or quoting people who quote the organization. Under policy those quotes are not independent, they are insufficient for us to produce a present a Neutral point of View of the org, and they do not qualify to support Notability. It is impossible for us to create a policy-compliant article. Any such article is unavoidably a promotional vehicle for the org's own statements, because we have nothing else available. We need multiple sources that devote a fair number of sentences writing about the org, rather than merely quoting it. Once we have that threshold, we can supplement the article using statements from org itself. Alsee (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A point of requiring independent and reliable sources is that subjective opinions about whether the coverage constitutes promotion or denigration are irrelevant. The reliability and independence of the sources here are uncontested. I understand that you want more secondary comment but descriptions of the org and brief bios of the founders exist and it’s obvious to me that outlets that report on their reports are taking significant notice of them. 78.18.234.190 (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alsee (and commendation on the effort!). I actually believe the Irish Times source in its entirety is about the org, because its other paragraphs use "GPHAE", an abbreviation for it. However, a single extensive source is not enough imo. There are a few other sources about its founder Heidi Beirich, but those would only help establish notability for a bio article. Having read that the org was founded only in 2020, I believe that this might be a case of [[WP:TOOSOON]. Future coverage might increase if the org can establish itself as a trusted resource, but we can't predict the future. So for now, delete, unfortunately. –LordPickleII (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched the archives of the New York Times and learned that this organization has been mentioned six times in recent years, but all were passing mentions of the form "Beirich of the GPHE said such and such about this hate group". I agree that this organization may well become notable at any time, if a few reliable sources decide to publish articles about the group instead of just mentioning its reports and the comments thats its leader made. So, I would not oppose turning the article into a draft. Cullen328 (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Global Project Against Hate and Extremism is an active organisation founded by notable research leads, with more recent substantial reports than the comments above. Their work to date has had a profound effect for such a relatively new and small organisation. Premature deletion would be regrettable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.253.24 (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion would not be a comment on the worthiness of the organisation, only on its notability. After all, we have articles about many bad people and bad organisations and we have no articles about huge numbers of good people and organisations. That said, if you are aware of any reliable coverage of this organisation, as an organisation, that might save the article then please let us know. DanielRigal (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a profile piece by Bryan Wall in The Beacon titled "An Interview with Heidi Beirich of the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism: 'We stand by our reporting'". Now cited in the History section of the page. 109.78.253.24 (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be an interview by a blogging site. Blogs are, in general, not reliable sources. They can sometimes be used to cite simple facts, but don't help with establishing notabiltiy, and as a result, not with this Deletion discussion. Please understand that we are not trying to do a "premature deletion". I personally find the work this org does to be very valuable, and am hopeful and, by current trajectory, optimistic that they will evantually become notable enough to have this article re-created. Such things are not unusual. However, we can't make exceptions for things we may be sympathetic towards, our policy must apply to all equally. –LordPeterII (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the argument that Wikipedia could and should have multiple articles on individual reports of this org (from a quick look at least two reports are uncontroversially notable) rather than one article on the org and its work seems unpersuasive. It would be nonsensical make-work to require two (or more) less comprehensive articles in its stead. A band with multiple album reviews should not have its page deleted on the grounds that it should have multiple articles for each notable album but no parent article. If anything it would make more sense to merge the album articles to a parent article.
I also think that nearly all the many media reports noticing this org tell their readers what the org is. This is by definition non-trivial, not a listing, not a passing mention. To discount it because it may be to a greater or lesser extent “brief” seems tortuous when the rest of the article gets on with detailing the org’s work.
Thinking of other ways to include this info, a redirect to a new section of, say, the notable Heidi Beirich seems unsatisfactory because she is only a co-founder of the org …and Wikipedia has no page for her in any case. 78.18.239.47 (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, report 1: NBC [7], and again [8], detailing how in the wake of the report Twitter & Google took action. Report 2: Irish Times [9], MSN/Irish Independent [10], PinkNews [11]. Report 3: Irish Examiner [12], Forbes [13]
The deletion position can only be that no two of these are instances of taking significant notice of the org but I don’t see that that holds.
Additionally, the founders are cited in their capacity as founders 9 or 10 times in each of the New York Times and Washington Post, as well as by NPR, TIME, CNN, etc. And various general descriptions of the org exist in these outlets and others. 78.18.234.190 (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on relisting: It seems unnecessary. Four longstanding editors (counting the AFD nominator), each with thousands or tens of thousands of edits, all gave delete arguments citing relevant policies and/or evaluating the sources. Two IP's participated, which is welcome and appropriate. Anyone is welcome here if they bring relevant new information or present arguments aligning with Wikipedia policy. I find the keep votes unpersuasive in light of Wikipedia policy. They substantially amount to WP:INHERITED claims for Notability, misunderstanding of passing mention, and the like. This organization may well be doing good things, it may well pass the inclusion criteria to have a Wikipedia article in the future, but unfortunately it doesn't currently satisfy WP:Notability. I welcome anyone else who wishes to respond here, but I would suggest that the current response is sufficient for a consensus result even if the relisting brings no one new. Alsee (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The relister probably has a few edits too. Among deletion opiners, LordPeterII considers the Irish Times piece a fine source for our purposes, so perhaps he also misunderstands, or you do, or opinions differ. 78.18.234.190 (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my vote, as one source is not enough. WP:SIRS contains an example of a neat "source assessment table" (which I don't have energy to create here), which illustrates more visually the issue: Yes, the Irish Times is usable here imo, but almost anyone you ask would say significant coverage or multiple sources do not imply one suffices. We would need, in my personal opinion, at least three sources of the quality of the Irish Times, which means two are lacking. I am quite optimistic that in the future, these lacking sources will eventually appear, and the article will eventually be re-instated (at least I hope that, there's no certainty about the future). So yes, opinions differ. The relist didn't hurt though, and the closing editor needs to evaluate the strength of arguments anyway. –LordPeterII (talk) 10:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added links under my keep which I think rise to the same standard. 78.18.253.136 (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I checked these. Reliable sources certainly, but still only passing mentions. They discuss an issue, quote people, and then briefly mention GPAHE. If I had a discussion with my friend, who'd at some point say "... oh yes, and the report is from Global Project against Hate and Extremism, check them out if you like. Anyway, as I was saying ..." I wouldn't tell others that my friend was talking about GPAHE primarily or extensively (not sure if this allegory is the best, but eh). Mentioning twice or even just once that an organization exists does not suffice, even if some of their products, reports, or members are discussed. But I think we must agree to disagree here, and leave the decision to the closing admin. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:55, 19 September 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. It looks like the majority of editors in this discussion believe this town satisfies WP:GEOLAND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lee, Indiana[edit]

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

Here I have come across a new low in edit comments, with the whole section on the Monon added with the following note: "Added more info. Mostly hearsay from men and women who were at there at the time." The section on the railroad museum is also padding, as it is nowhere near Lee. Also in the edit comments is a citation to A Standard History of White County, Indiana from 1915, which on pp. 209-210 identifies the place as a post office and shipping point on the Monon; the writer records an aspiration of the place to develop beyond that, but given the date of publication I would want something later to record that expansion. As it is, we have a few houses sprinkled about with nothing else suggesting a town. Mangoe (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think this might meet WP:GEOLAND? It's always difficult to assess that for a place that was never large, and then mostly abandoned for a long time. My search only yields this, but if that book "History and Reflections of Lee, Indiana" actually was published, it might give support to the claims on that page (Lee, Indiana, like so many throughout the state, died out when the rail lines stopped passenger service and closed depots), and might have been the source of some of the info in the article. I'm frankly unsure how to vote here (WP:GEOLAND has given me headaches before), so only leaving a comment. –LordPickleII (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate that the book is not online, but a preview by the State of Indiana government website regarding legacy projects does reference it and supports the statement: These stops became small towns complete with a depot, stores and early settlers. Lee, Indiana, like so many throughout the state, died out when the rail lines stopped and closed depots. Djflem (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Performed a newspapers.com search. This location is variously called Lee, Lee Station, and Lee's Station. Only coverage I can find is sporadic mentions in obituaries and railway news (e.g. "Man hit by train four miles from Lee Station"). There was apparently a "Lee M.E. church", but other than that, nothing new. Fails NGEO and GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly a post office, a rail station, and church [14][15] are a settlement/community, no? Even if somewhat abandoned? per Bass, Cotter (2020), The Treasure Hunter's Guide To INDIANA'S LOST & BURIED TREASURES: Plus GHOST TOWNS & HISTORIC SITES, BookRix, ISBN 9783748767732 Djflem (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but not satisfying NGEO I think as "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG." I do not think there is enough SIGCOV. "Lee was place with a post office open from X to Y and had a rail depot and church" is hardly an article. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As as NGEO NGEO says (see below), it's appropriate to redirect/merge. Djflem (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ (selective) to Monon Township, White County, Indiana per Wikipedia:NGEO If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it. and per Hamelle, W. H. (1915), A Standard History of White County, Indiana: An Authentic Narrative of the Past, with an Extended Survey of Modern Developments in the Progress of Town and Country, University of Wisconsin - Madison, p. 209, OAKDALE, OR LEE The only existing postoffice in Monon Township outside the village is Lee , in the northwest corner , about a mile from the Jasper County line on the Louisville , New Albany & Chicago (Monon) Railroad. and other. Djflem (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HEY (additions and improvements to article): satisfies GNG. Djflem (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. There are certainly quite a few named "localities" in Indiana that in practice are not actually populated places in any reasonable sense, and it's good for those to be deleted. Lee, however, doesn't seem to fall into that category. For one thing, I notice it has multiple named streets of its own, something GNIS-spam non-towns generally don't and a good indication that it's a recognized populated place, presumably like any other existing ones with a town plat at the courthouse. (Most like the rightly deleted Pleasant Acres and others tend to be just indistinguishable points along county roads.) It also has documented history; for any small rural community it's to be expected that it'll be sparse, and no less so for Lee that for many others that we rightly retain. Though it's certainly small, Lee appears to be a legitimate town, and deleting it would be contrary to the guidance at GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." ╠╣uw [talk] 11:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is it "legally recognized"? It doesn't appear to have ever been incorporated. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not incorporated (at least not that I'm aware of), but even under GEOLAND's guidelines for populated places without legal recognition it's still appropriate to retain the article, in that it has the characteristics and long-term historical indicators of a legitimate and extant (though small and unincorporated) town, and not just a non-notable GNIS/GEOnNS artifact. I support efforts to clean up Wikipedia by getting rid of the latter, but I favor keeping the former. ╠╣uw [talk] 14:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Legal recognition and incorporation are not one and the same thing by any means (the former being a poorly defined term Wikipedia term in a geographical context, bantered about for a long time). It's just that incorporated places get a "free pass to "wikinotablity" via NGEO. It's not even clear if townships in Indiana are incorporated, but they, too, get a "free pass". Djflem (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was wondering about the "legal recognition" phrase too since it seems a bit murky, and as you say it's not synonymous with incorporation. For things that are more than just "GNIS fluff" and for which at least a modicum of documentary and historical evidence exists in reliable sources, I think it's best to retain, and it seems like Lee's in that group. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know there have been debates about what "legal recognition" entails. Incorporation is just an example of something that satisfies that. What kind of legal recognition are you talking about? Is there evidence that this is a CDP? -Indy beetle (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appears we moved away from the unuseful debate about legal recognition, which is a non-defining term. What would be inappropriate about following the NGEO guidle line which suggests merge for "informal places"? Djflem (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since GEOLANDS separates guidelines on the basis of legal recognition, it unfortunately seems like something we do still have to consider. Is being formally platted as a town something that would constitute a form of legal recognition? (If so, that's something I could probably verify.) ╠╣uw [talk] 14:41, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That might depend on who platted it. The town of Pembroke, North Carolina, for example, was platted by a real estate management subsidiary of the railway company which built a station there, several years before the town gained incorporation, so that lots could be sold to people and businesses who wanted to locate nearby. Private platting doesn't seem like "legal recognition". -Indy beetle (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No actual evidence of legal recognition or significant coverage to meet GEOLAND or GNG. Despite its age, A Standard History of White County, Indiana (1915) is the best source we have; The Treasure Hunter's Guide To INDIANA'S LOST & BURIED TREASURES is self-published through Bookrix and many of its entries cite Wikipedia. With these old platted towns, it's often hard to parse whether or not they were ever actually developed, but it's telling that after 30 years of existence the 1915 source only mentions it as a post office instead of including it alongside the town of Monon/New Bradford. If there had been anything in Lee besides the post office and railroad shipping point, then surely the author would have said so. –dlthewave ☎ 17:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Conjecture about what and why a writer writes something or not is clearly not a AfD argument, is it? Twenty five years later still worthy of inclusion in this 1908 map. Unclear what is depicted in this 1920 map. Could it be the church, which goes unmentioned above, but certainly speaks to more than a PO or RR station? Djflem (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the 1915 source doesn't say it was only a post office: "Oakdale, or Lee, is an important shipping point for hay. Hundreds of tons are baled at the station every year and shipped abroad, and, with the improvement of the surrounding farming lands, it has become an equally good point for the marketing and shipping of grain." (Multiple other sources also call out the grain market.) So we know it was at least a post office, railway station, grain market, and center for transportation of local bulk agricultural products including grain and hay. The town's roughly 120 lots were also laid out on multiple named streets, three of which are still there today. ╠╣uw [talk] 17:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I took a trip to the library (and explored more online) to look for additional supporting sources and found several more which I've added to the article. I actually wound up boldly rewriting a majority of the article text, not just to incorporate the new sources but also to flesh out the historical summary and geographical descriptions, correct some minor errors and misstatements, add a photo of the town, etc.

A few of the additional sources relate specifically to Lee and its history, features, status, etc. It's noted in Baker and Carmony's Indiana Place Names (1975) and in Baker's From Needmore to Prosperity (1995), which describes it as a village and grain market established by (and named for) ID&C Railroad President John Lee in 1883. The origins are also described by the Monon Railroad Historical Technical-Society (citation added). I note too that Hamelle's Standard History (previously cited) describes Lee as "an important shipping point for hay" as well as a local center for grain shipping and marketing; this point wasn't previously mentioned in the text but is now included. As I mentioned earlier I also wanted to find more plat-related details, and though I wasn't able to check the original records in Monticello I did find multiple volumes of official plat books in the library (published from 1990 through the early 2000s) that identify Lee as a town or village, rather than simply a point. I'll follow up with more details when I get the actual plat.

Some of the other newly-added sources touch only on related subjects in the article such as the history of the railroad that passes through town, the local geography, etc., and so aren't strictly relevant to this discussion; I included them while I was doing my update, though, just in the interest of strengthening the article overall.

(Note: Several of the reference citations I put in have overly length quotation blocks, something I did deliberately as a temporary aid to expanding and reviewing the article. These can and should be trimmed down once they've been reviewed.) ╠╣uw [talk] 16:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Huwmanbeing. A trip to the library, wow! That's kinda old school, I like it :) Coverage is still a little thin, but I am convinced the sources now suffice to establish notability. –LordPeterII (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This appears to satisfy WP:GEOLAND inasmuch as this is a legally recognized place that is currently (and has historically been) populated, so WP:DEL-REASON#8 is off the table. The sourcing is substantial enough to write a brief encyclopedia entry, but this is not destined to be a permastub. As such, I see no convincing reason to do anything other than keep the page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Presumed to be notable" isn't the same thing as actually being notable, something can pass WP:GEOLAND and still be reasonably deleted per consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N#1 requires that a subject meet either the general notability guideline... or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (emphasis added), so passing WP:GEOLAND is perfectly sufficient and does not require a GNG pass. That being said, this article also does pass GNG through coverage by multiple independent RS, including:

[16] pp. 209-210, which describes the origin of the town
[17], which per the Indiana Bicentennial Commission is a whole book on the history of Lee.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG with the two pieces of SIGCOV listed above by Red-tailed hawk, which includes a whole book on this town's history. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the place had a fucntioning post office for 50 years, that'll generate coverage, even if it's never made it to digital. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware that post offices typically generate coverage and our guidelines certainly don't support that assertion. WP:NRV requires "verificable, objective evidence", not just a vague claim that sources probably exist offline. –dlthewave ☎ 12:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while the book about Lee cited above is clearly unreliable, as it was self-published by someone who does not appear to be a subject-matter expert, this place does clearly pass WP:GEOLAND. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:25, 18 September 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 to Delete this article. But like with many others, an article might be possible in the future should available reliable sources (not Google hits) improve in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aya Shalkar[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Kadı Message 21:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants, Popular culture, and Kazakhstan. Kadı Message 21:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable influencer, no sources found. Ones given appear trivial mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Weak, because there is no critique of the soruces present (in Russian). Plus a Russian-language search should be carried out to confirm there are no sources. No, I am not doing either, neither, but at least I admit my shortcomings, hence the weak qualifications. That said, responsibility to clearly indicate why the subject is notable, and format footnotes correctly with info on publisher, etc. to indicate they are relable, translate names in citations templates, etc. is the responsibility of the creator. Since they didn't do so, the article looks like it fails GNG/NBIO, hence - leaning delete. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Fashion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep instead of deleting, using it as stub and expending the article would much make more sense cuz this article doesn't even mention LoL copyright controversy. ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @ZeusAmmon1. According to your Turkish and English Wikipedia edits which belongs to Aya Shalkar makes me think about WP:COI. Do you have a connection with Aya Shalkar? Kadı Message 19:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha This is exactly what you're doing here. You started a deletion request here after deleting it there. By the way on English wikipedia i don't have any edit. So what are you talking about? Check the authorship ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to understand the first part of this comment, but I must explain that there is a trwiki side of this story as well. ZeusAmmon created the article of this subject on trwiki on 6 September, which was speedy deleted per M6 (similar to A7 of enwiki), then recreated by him the next day, then deleted again and salted as well. He took this to the talk page of the second patroller, where he called the patroller for violationg NPOV because... he didn't send the article to AfD but rather tagged it for CSD, which, you know, is a bit on the weird side of the argument spectrum. Once notified about this AfD, he proceeds to join in with an argument that is based on no enwiki policy (not even trwiki policy) whatsoever. Generally speaking, this is considered to be suspicious behavior, and a question realting to a conflict of interest is quite normal. ~Styyx^Talk? 20:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Afd rule isn't different from the Turkish version and I don't understand why you're trying to associate some model and graphic designer with me. It looks like you're trying to manipulate community here. You should have send it to Afd at Turkish wiki, but obviously but you didn't because of with a ridiculous reason. Kadı accused me with typing at both wikis and association with her (which writing on both wikis isn't against the rules), but as i prove before I don't have Aya shalkar related edit. Kadı, can you explain me why you accusing people while people are able to check authorship of articles. And the thing i don't understand why are you guys keep coming here to answer me? It smells fishy :D. There's only one way to this gethering and it's a ban reason. So, be honest are you guys live puppeting/shadow puppeting each other? ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfD isn't different, but speedy deletion is. Trwikis M6 allows you to pretty much tag everything that doesn't have two sources (GNG pass), while enwikis A7 applies to only a set of limited articles that don't have a credible claim of significance. This would pass a trwiki M6, but not an enwiki A7. Why the two patrollers on trwiki went for CSD and not AfD is beyond my knowledge, but there is no such requirement of sending everything to AfD, and two seperate admins have deleted it. Being eligable for speedy deletion isn't a "ridiculous reason".

You do realize that this very edit of yours is an Aya Shalkar related edit, right? And that's the point here: you come to participate in an AfD discussion in a project where you have no idea as to how its deletion process works. ~Styyx^Talk? 22:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise we're not at wiki/Aya_Shalkar or /wiki/Talk:Aya_Shalkar ? ZeusAmmon1 (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently commenting at the deletion discussion of Aya Shalkar. ~Styyx^Talk? 17:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found other than trivial mentions. Not WP:NOTABLE by Wikipedia standards. Jontesta (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there's a blue-checked account by her name on Instagram with 742,000 followers, but short of a million, and that's not automatically notable in my book. Basically, secondary sources are sparse. Is she still notable enough? Bearian (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch monkey[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a jargon guide or dictionary. The original University of Toronto story has been mentioned in book sources outside of the Hacker's Dictionary/Jargon File, but likewise only as a dictionary entry 1 2. This is not significant coverage that indicates the information on the social or historical significance of the term required to justify this term having its own article. Pinguinn 🐧 20:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Pinguinn 🐧 20:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It literally breaks my heart to !vote delete on a computer folklore article that's been around since 2004... but this isn't a notable topic; it has no coverage in reliable sources outside of brief definitions. Thparkth (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)*[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not The Jargon File. De Guerre (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking secondary sources. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:DICDEF. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 20 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Socialists of Vojvodina[edit]

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

I don't believe there is enough out there to meet WP:NORG. I've found only passing mentions of the political party, in both English and Serbian.

Everything I've found. Books: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. News: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]. PDFs: [30] [31]. Websites: [32] [33]. SWinxy (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Serbia. SWinxy (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Minor, short-lived party, eventually merged somewhere or died out. No such user (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for woeful lack of significant sources. The burden shifts to those claiming they found sources and added them to the stub. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 20 September 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. BD2412 T 06:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Kirillov (born 2002)[edit]

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

Can't find any evidence of notability. To date, he has played 9 minutes in a semi-pro league, which is not a valid claim to notability. Google News and a Russian source search have only trivial mentions of Kirillov. Does not appear to pass WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG as there appears to be an absence of significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have not identified any sources that demonstrate the notability.--Tysska (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer which fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable footballer, fail WP:SPORTBASIC. ZanciD (talk) 17:34, 17 September 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 Water features on the Canal du Midi. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Déversoir de St-Jean[edit]

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

Stubs from 2010 about weirs on the Canal du Midi. A google search could not find anything other than WP mirrors and unrelated topics. Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG. dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Transportation, and France. dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 18:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to Water features on the Canal du Midi. No evidence of notability. Reywas92^Talk 02:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Water features on the Canal du Midi. Djflem (talk) 06:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as is usually done for these cases. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 20 September 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 per WP:SNOW. @Blaze The Wolf: a search for sources in Google usually isn't suitable for this kind of article. Try Books and other areas. (non-admin closure) —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC) Failed ping Blaze Wolf —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hicks (musicologist)[edit]

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

Per a PROD that was removed, this person doesn't appear to be notable, and a quick search for reliable refs only returns 1 result which appears to just link to this page. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Poetry. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:AUTHOR. His books have attracted reviews:

Spencer Kimball’s Record Collection: Essays in Mormon Music

in Notes[34]
in Dialogue[35]
in Utah Historical Quarterly[36]
from the Association of Mormon Letters[37]

Mormonism and Music: A History

in BYU Studies[38]
in American Music[39]
in Dialogue[40]
in Pacific Historical Review[41]
in Western Historical Quarterly[42]
in Studies in Popular Culture[43]
in The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal (original edition)[44]
in The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal (reissue in 2004)[45]
in The Journal of Arizona History[46]

The Mormon Tabernacle Choir: A Biography

in The Wall Street Journal[47]
in Notes[48]
in BYU Studies[49]
in Nova Religio[50][51]
in By Common Consent[52]
from the Association of Mormon Letters (which I can't access at the moment)

Henry Cowell, Bohemian (his work on Cowell is referenced in the NY Times[53]

in Notes[54]
in American Music[55]

Sixties Rock: Garage, Psychedelic, and Other Satisfactions

in Notes[56]
in Labour[57]
in Ethnomusicology[58]

Jahaza (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jahaza. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough sources to establish notability. Fabiobengario (talk) 22:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jahaza. Retinalsummer (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources provided by Jahaza are more than sufficient to pass WP:NAUTHOR, so the reason for deletion that the individual fails to meet the relevant notability criteria seems to be rather incorrect. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by sources provided in the discussion. Elbatli (talk) 13:13, 14 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xander Kostroma[edit]

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

Not finding any better sources. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete zero sources, only his social media sites. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article is a borderline G11 speedy deletion due to how promotional it is, a search brought up nothing but social media and other primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:21, 18 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Vampola[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:JUDGE (district level judge, not state level) Paul W (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did not find coverage in reliable sources which would indicate that WP:BIO can be met. SmartSE (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nebraska. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears that the main impetus for the WP article, that the subject of the article resigned as a judge under suspicious circumstances, is from resources dated Sept. 11, 2022 - just days ago. The only significant resources all are from the same date and are primarily about the resignation but do include background information that has been added to the article. The sources are lengthy and suitably about him, but I don't see notability. It's not quite a WP:ONEEVENT because the articles recount a small number of transgressions, but none of the events are of encyclopedic interest. Lamona (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTTHENEWS, plus a cursory glance raises some minor WP:BLP concerns. Additionally, per WP:JUDGE, the "part of the enduring historical record" clause isn't met here. Unless something major happens with this case, I see no reason to keep this. Etrius ( Us) 19:51, 18 September 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Action Deaf Youth[edit]

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

Promotional article on a subject which is non-notable. Searched around and found nothing much Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 16:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Northern Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional articles can be edited to be more neutral. When using search engines, adjust your location settings to find more relevant results (e.g. google.co.uk). Make use of the Internet Archive and Wikipedia Library. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is the largest deaf youth organisation in Northern Ireland, and current sourcing satisfies WP:GNG and WP:NONPROFIT. Most in-depth coverage is the 2017 article in BelfastLive – although it includes quotes from two members from the charity, it is a lengthy piece which also includes many paragraphs of text written by reporter Sarah Scott. Other significant coverage includes two articles in Belfast Telegraph – one of which doesn’t count toward notability, as it’s contributed by co-founder Malachy McBurney, but the other focuses on a landmark report co-authored by the Northern Irish Deaf Youth Association (as Action Deaf Youth was previously known) which was presented to the Ministry of Education. The 2022 article in Larne Times is also helpful in providing a summary overview of the charity. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 21 references here and the nominator hasn't given any reason why these aren't adequate or why the subject isn't notable. Article can be rewritten to be less promotional but I don't see any major problems. Garuda3 (talk) 17:25, 20 September 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 Indian Predator: The Diary of a Serial Killer. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dheeraj Jindal[edit]

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

He is by no means a notable filmmaker. Still has a long way to go. WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOTCV. RPSkokie (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. RPSkokie (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect By a Google search you can find reliable sources about Indian Predator: The Diary of a Serial Killer. They're all passing mentions of his in articles about his notable film. There no evidence of notability for him as a director. My comment is redirecting to Indian Predator: The Diary of a Serial Killer. Nassimela (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. Fabiobengario (talk) 23:24, 13 September 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 redirect to wiktionary entry. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:07, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caput[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This seems like another WP:DICTDEF, mostly unreferenced, failing at WP:GNG. Wikitionary entry will suffice for such entities. Ps. Note that this was transwikid even back in the very early days (2006) but apparently restored and survived till now. A quick glance at Category:Latin words and phrases suggests we have some major house cleaning to do here... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, it's DICDEF, could be copied to an online dictionary with the same formatting/content and it would be at home there. Nothing we need in wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wiktionary entry. Just a list of uses for the word. Waddles 🗩 🖉 20:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to the Wiktionary entry. While Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wiktionary is. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:30, 15 September 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 - performed by User:Ponyo. UtherSRG (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Study Techniques[edit]

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

I had to decline the speedy on this, as it didn't fit A11, nor any of the others. Fails WP:NOTGUIDE at the very least. Ged UK 13:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this sort of thing is not within scope of Wikipedia. Possibly could be transwikied to Wikiversity. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is nothing more than an essay and spam. PICKLEDICAE🥒 13:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay, with no lead or intro. We don't have a special version of wiki for students, as the notes at the bottom suggest. Appears to be OR. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard fails via WP:NOR. In fact, the article's author says this is "Invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator" which is the very definition of OR. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't place too much on that, the OP has been adding nutshell templates all over that article and talk page for some reason. Ged UK 16:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete I've found study skills which seems to be close enough to warrant CSD A10. Since I've weighed in here, I feel that I should not do the delete myself. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great candidate to fit A10. I don't think I should action it though as this is my nom and I declined the last one. Someone will pick it up. Ged UK 16:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wholly uninvolved here, so I've speedy deleted per A10.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a badly-written essay. I'd advise the article creator to do some actual studying (not least, on what Wikipedia is for), before attempting to tell others how to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTGUIDE. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is WP:OR and WP:NOTHOWTO with no sign of any notability or even significance. I tagged this as a speedy deletion based on lack of significance and OR, but there remains no merit to this article Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this semi-literate garbage. Can't this junk be speedied? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wish there was a CSD criterion that would fit this, but there isn't. A discussion for CSD perhaps. Ged UK 16:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - semi-literate is an overestimate. "time is impotent for study" and "we take brake in between the Process of grasping some think" - some think this is nonsense. Oculi (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A10, incomprehensible rewrite of Study skills. Article creator's last opus, Finfish and fins, was just as bad. Storchy (talk) 17:16, 14 September 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mental plane[edit]

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

Although there is content on the page it is all unsourced. The page is quite unclear about what the article is about, claiming to be about Hermeticism, Theosophical, Rosicrucian, Aurobindonian, and New Age, but mostly only seeming to talk about Theosophy which is WP:FRINGE. I asked for help on the above pages and Sri Aurobindo but editors have indicated no interest in this page. The only talk page content is threads asking about notability [59]. It is a mess, and the unverifiable reflections and ideas are very debatable. At the very least needs WP:TNT to allow a new targetted page on whatever the subject should be. However, my research suggests that the Mental Plane is largely a sub element of Theosophical Cosmology and would be better treated in that subject as a whole, or as Blavatsky's cosmology rather than as a separate page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NONSENSE and WP:MADEUP, this article appears to be an amateur attempt to syncretize different bits of multiple different esoteric traditions and broadly asserts things in a way where they couldn't even begin to be verifiable. The page title is worthless and the content is meaningless so WP:TNT seems to fit here. - car chasm (talk) 18:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not properly sourced and reads as original research, best not to merge anything but delete it. No page numbers are given in the references. We already have an article Plane_(esotericism)#Manasic_or_Mental_plane which can be redirected there. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero references and completely unsourced article.I could not understand how this article can meets notability guidelines. Elbatli (talk) 13:21, 14 September 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. I'm not a fan of "No consensus" but there seems to be a fundamental disagreement here about whether or not this subject passes WP:NACTOR because of work done since the last AFD in 2019. I see that many accounts supporting a Keep are fairly new editors but that doesn't allow me to completely disregard their opinions. This article can't be moved to Caylee Cowan as that article is admin-protected but a request can be made to WP:HISTMERGE the two articles and an admin handling article merges can consider the request. I appreciate the participating editors not moving this article around to different titles during this AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caylee Cowan(actress)[edit]

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

Article was deleted before because of Wikipedia:TOOSOON. Acting as a leading role and receiving WP:SIGCOV can causes notability. Please check out notability of subject. AmirŞah 11:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United States of America. AmirŞah 11:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, only sources I pull up are "who is she dating" and fan sites. The article itself appears abandoned, TBD in a short film that was in 2018... Not notable ACTOR, appears bit parts. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By a review of Google search appears to support WP:BASIC notability. [60], [61], [62], [63] are a part of sources that focusing on subject significantly. Also there are more sources that introduced her as an actress who is in relation with another famous actor in red carpet at the 79th Venice International Film Festival [64], [65]. Also she had leading and supporting roles in films including Sunrise in Heaven, Frank and Penelope and acting in other notable films such as Willy's Wonderland and Spinning Gold and others that shows WP:Nactor. Nassimela (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NACTOR, due to had significant roles in multiple notable films as Sunrise in Heaven, Frank and Penelope, Spinning Gold and ect.Fabiobengario (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Noting various attempts to created this article before: Caylee cowan, Caylee Cowan (actress), Caylee Cowan, etc. A previous AfD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Caylee_Cowan. If kept, this should be moved to Caylee Cowan. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Wasn't notable in 2019, but seems to just about be over the WP:NACTOR bar now due to additional roles and coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but fix title. Keep for reasons given above. Title has an obvious spacing problem that needs repair. 5Q5|^✉ 11:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move Subject passes WP:NACTOR, per her significant appearances in notable films that was named by above contributes. The title of artilce is not appropriate and it is better to be moved to Caylee Cowan. Elbatli (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (leaning weak keep) Caylee Cowan is a currently redirect to an earlier film currently; and fully protected after being changed back to a full article multiple times. It has a pretty big history and is tagged as a Redirects with history, to keep in mind. (I've fixed some formatting and removed some WP:PEACOCK in this article text that was also a bit too long verbatim copying, btw.) Skynxnex (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps WP:HISTMERGE is an option? Looks like the protection is due to a sock issue earlier this year. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caylee Cowan. How many times must we do this? She isn't notable. PICKLEDICAE🥒 14:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In 2019, her significant role was only in Sunrise in Heaven and it should be redirected to the page of the film, as they voted correctly. But after 3 years she acted in multiple notable films and has received WP:RS. ZanciD (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability criteria for actors: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions, her significant roles in films were mentioned in article. Passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers. ZanciD (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also the title of article should be fixed and moved to Caylee Cowan. ZanciD (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There reliable sources and several leading roles. Kirill C1 (talk) 17:36, 18 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Western Province Prep[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Not a secondary school. Fails WP:NCORP. All three references are from connected sources. No improvement since I tagged for notability four years ago. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and South Africa. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fairly large prep school with over a century of history. I can't believe there aren't offline sources out there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've only found this which is great but imho it's not enough especially when nothing else comes up, Google results are filled with your average spammy ads/listings, Fails NSCHOOL & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 10:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mostly listings and promotion. Nothing in-depth. The Banner talk 13:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient sources to be an evidence for establishing notability. Fails WP:NCORP. Elbatli (talk) 13:34, 14 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cai Haoyu[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and China. Shellwood (talk) 09:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources mostly discuss the company and the game, not the individual. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 18:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
1. Feng, Yunyun 冯云云 (2022-07-15). ""野蛮生长"米哈游：济南小伙在上海创业，身价直逼李彦宏" ["Barbaric Growth" Mihayou: The Jinan guy started a business in Shanghai, and his worth is close to Li Yanhong]. Shandong Business Daily [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12 – via Economic Daily.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "According to local media reports in Jinan, Cai Haoyu, who was born in 1987, is a native of Jinan. He attended the primary school in Jinan Baliqiao Primary School. At the age of 11, he was elected as the "first batch of junior academicians of the Chinese Academy of Youth Sciences". In 2005, he was admitted to Shanghai Jiaotong University. In 2011, 24-year-old Cai Haoyu and [his co-founders] founded Mihayou after winning 100,000 yuan from the "Eagle Program" of the Shanghai Science and Technology Entrepreneurship Center Student Entrepreneurship Foundation."
  The article further notes from Google Translate: "In the "2022 New Fortune 500 Rich List" released in May this year, Cai Haoyu ranked 73rd with a wealth value of 55.35 billion yuan. ... This is the first time that 35-year-old Cai Haoyu has been included in the 500 rich list. Among the top 100 in the list, Cai Haoyu is the only entrepreneur who was shortlisted for the single item "game"."
2. Lin, 林红艳 (2022-03-09). Kang, Linghua 康玲华 (ed.). "米哈游CEO蔡浩宇上学时就研发网游公司却因"兔女郎"引轩然大波" [Mihayou CEO Cai Haoyu developed online games when he was in school, but the company caused an uproar because of the "bunny girl"]. 运营商财经 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12 – via NetEase.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "According to public information, Cai Haoyu was born in 1987, was admitted to Shanghai Jiaotong University in 2005, and then studied for a master's degree in computer science at the school. In 2011, Cai Haoyu, Liu Wei and Luo Yuhao, who were in the second year of graduate school at the time, jointly established Mihayou Studio and started his business."
3. Tang, Zhenglu 唐正璐, ed. (2022-06-21). "三位年轻人，造出游戏界"印钞机"，席卷全球，缔造千亿估值" [Three young people created a "money printing machine" in the game industry, sweeping the world and creating a valuation of 100 billion]. 七禾网 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "According to public information, Cai Haoyu, who has just become the richest man in Jinan, is the CEO of Mihayou. He was born in Jinan, Shandong in 1987. His parents are teachers who teach computer-related subjects. Cai Haoyu has shown a strong interest in computer games since he was a child, and he has also shown an intuition that is unmatched by ordinary people. After his parents discovered that he was gifted in this area, they began to systematically teach him relevant computer knowledge. With the computer knowledge he learned, in 1996, Cai Haoyu, who was only 8 years old, made "Alien Envoy" by himself and won the second prize in the animation group of the National Computer Competition. Two years after winning the award, at the age of 10, he was elected as the "Little Academician" of the Chinese Academy of Juveniles with his professional knowledge in the computer field."
4. Bu, Jing 步静, ed. (2019-02-22). "别人家的孩子太优秀！这些"85后"正踏上IPO征途" [Other people's children are amazing! These "post-85s" are embarking on the IPO journey]. Shanghai Securities Journal (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2022-09-12. Retrieved 2022-09-12 – via National Business Daily.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Cai Haoyu, chairman of Mihayou, was born in a businessman family. Influenced by his parents, he had the gene for "doing business" since he was a child. When he was in junior high school, he was a little smart in Japan, he sold watches in high school. He opened an account to speculate in stocks when he was an adult. When he was in college, he could earn more than 300,000 a month. But doing business did not delay his studies. After graduating from Shanghai Jiaotong University with a master's degree, Cai Haoyu ran all the way on the road of entrepreneurship. In 2012, Cai Haoyu and two classmates from Shanghai Jiaotong University founded Mihayou, whose business mainly focuses on domestic animation mobile games, comics and other fields."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cai Haoyu (Chinese: 蔡浩宇) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's good and all but I don't think they have made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field". Futher the whole article reads like a cross between a promo and resume. Just having money and running a company is not notable. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field" is a quote from Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Any biography, a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria, which says:

People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.

Cai Haoyu is notable under Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria.

While the article can be improved to be more neutral, Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.

Cunard (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Merge~~ - to mihoyo, which much of the current prose is more about. If someone can muster up a proper bio with reliable sourcing, I don't have a problem with splitting it back out. But we're far from that in the articles current prose. Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revised to keep. Still not in amazing shape, but good enough to clear the GNG and avoid any WP:MERGEREASONs now. Sergecross73 msg me 01:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to mihoyo is a good option Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to miHoYo#History. Likely notable from Cunard's sources, but content is mainly about miHoYo and is better off there until someone wants to create an article that's more balanced about his life. Feel free to ping if anyone wants to try a WP:HEY. Jumpytoo Talk 07:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks Cunard for the WP:HEY. Now suitable for a standalone article. Jumpytoo Talk 23:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Within the next week, I plan to reframe the article to be about the person rather than the company he co-founded using the sources I presented here. Cunard (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. Feel free to work on it from the user/draft space if you end up doing it after this closes merge. Sergecross73 msg me 17:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dr vulpes (talk · contribs), Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs), Sergecross73 (talk · contribs), and Jumpytoo (talk · contribs), I reframed the article to be about the person (Cai Haoyu) rather than the company he co-founded (mihoyo). Cunard (talk) 07:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure how to close this discussion when the current article is radically different from the version that was nominated for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a frustrating one, the article has improved but I still don't think it passes WP:NBIO. @Liz you know a lot more then me do you think there might be some subject area experts we could ping to weigh in? I'm not really sure where to start with something like that. I'm also willing to admit when I'm starting drift out of my lane. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure User:Dr vulpes. I've seen this happen a couple of times where, during an AFD, an article isn't just improved but changed, in one case, to be about a different subject. I'm not sure why editors can't wait for an AFD to close before making major changes or merging articles. I'll ping Sergecross73 to see what they think. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Cunard has done anything wrong - Ive many times in the past rewritten articles in efforts to keep poor/lazy deletion nominations. Not that this nom was either - it was a very good nomination for the articles original form. Honestly, I'm probably more of a "neutral" in all this right now. Cunard did address my main concerns...but at the same time, it's still a pretty rough bio. Which isn't to slight to Cunard either, I imagine the goal was merely do enough to keep the article, not write a comprehensive bio on the subject. And they didn't so much "change the subject" as much as they removed the off-topic stuff and added on-topic content.

Sorry, that's a lot of musing without a solution. Here's what we could try - maybe we relist it one more time, and I could leave a neutral note at WP:VG asking for more input because we're at a bit of a stalemate. WP:VG usually has a bunch of regulars that participate at AFD, and for whatever reason I was really the only one who jumped on this time. A nudge could help. Sergecross73 msg me 22:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have substantially rewritten articles at AfDs numerous times in the past too. I did so in this particular case because two editors (Sergecross73 and Jumpytoo) said they were willing to reconsider their "merge" position if the article was reframed to be about the person rather than the company he founded. Per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required, there is more work that can be done to expand and improve the article, but I think it is in a good state now. There are detailed sections about the subject's "Early life" and "Career". The article no longer has multiple paragraphs about the company with little discussion of him.

No editors have explained why the sources are insufficient for Cai Haoyu to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. The AfD has received sufficient input to be closed and it's not clear why this needs to be relisted. But if the AfD is relisted, I support a neutral note at WP:VG asking for more input.

Cunard (talk) 07:46, 21 September 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!} 07:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ad interim[edit]

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

This seems to be a classic case of WP:DICTDEF. No evidence this phrase has received the wider coverage required by WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps a redirect to List of Latin phrases (assuming this is a phrase, technically...?) would be best WP:PRESEVE-minded outcome? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICT. The phrase is already listed on List of Latin phrases. I added the reference from the article, which is all that is mergeable. Bold merge and redirect might have been quicker and uncontroversial in this case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep We have an article on ad hominem but why not on ad interim?

Madame Necker (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Madame Necker Please do better than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (follow this link to see the critique of your argument). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dictdef. Andre🚐 18:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is also a Wiktionary entry of ad interim. Rob3512 (Talk) 13:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Expunge this Latinate locution. Mangoe (talk) 13:11, 13 September 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!} 08:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orkhan Valiyev[edit]

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

Not clear why he is notable. Cant find any references in English for him. Rathfelder (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Azerbaijan. Rathfelder (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found, article says he travels, plays sports and has a pending book. ROUTINE. No sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 13 September 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!} 07:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Isidore Village[edit]

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

Non-notable subdivision. Fails WP:GEOLAND. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to San Isidro, Cabuyao. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. SeanJ 2007, San Isidro, Cabuyao has notability issues of its own. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HueMan1: Okay. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND per nom. There are several villages in various towns and cities which carry that name. SBKSPP (talk) 01:37, 17 September 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!} 07:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

La Marea (village)[edit]

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

Non-notable subdivision. Fails WP:GEOLAND. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Philippines. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND per nom. There are several villages in various towns and cities which carry that name. SBKSPP (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:32, 18 September 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Meltzer (writer)[edit]

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

~~Unable to locate WP:THREE in the article. Fails GNG DavidEfraim (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 05:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and United States of America. DavidEfraim (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only source for WP:SIGCOV would be the Forbes article, even with that it's a clear fail. QuietHere (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a bad faith nom - receipient of two major awards, so meets WP:ANYBIO. Kevin Winzer (talk) 07:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bad faith nomination by a sock account. BilletsMauves^€500 07:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that the nominator is a sock isn't really relevant since a non-sock has presented a good-faith argument to delete, so we should look at the merits here. I don't think either of the listed awards are "well-known and significant" for purposes of WP:ANYBIO: the Ellis Island Medal of Honor has thousands of recipients, and the Variety "Sports Humanitarian of the Year" does not appear to be a noteworthy honor. The Forbes article linked above is unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. The remaining sources cited in the article all appear to be unreliable/non-independent or only passing mentions, and my search for GNG-qualifying coverage didn't turn up anything that is independent (not, e.g., an interview or press release), is reliable, and discusses Meltzer in detail. Not notable, as far as I can tell. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Courtauld Institute of Art#Study resources. The "keep" arguments amount to "it's useful" and "it's interesting", which are not policy-based arguments and fail to address the WP:GNG issue. Content can be merged from the history as deemed appropriate. Sandstein 07:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Conway Photographic Library[edit]

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

No sources are present in the article. Fails WP:GNG. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Photography, and United Kingdom. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 02:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to The Courtauld Institute of Art. It is already better covered there. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment That an article is unreferenced is not ipso facto a reason for deletion; there may be sources. In this case I'm not sure that what I've found suffices to establish notability independant of the Coutauls. However I think that the list of photographers held is useful & much too long (150 entries, most if not all blue link) to lump in with teh Courtauld article, which would suggest a rename and keepTheLongTone (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is already a longstanding redirect at Conway Library to the Courtauld article. AllyD (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I have extended the article text a bit and added references, but am unconvinced these add up to demonstrating specific notability for this collection and particularly for the unreferenced list of those whose photographs are collected there. The existing Conway Library redirect to The_Courtauld_Institute_of_Art#Study_resources lands at a paragraph about this and the Witt Collection. I am inclined to think that is sufficient, but I also see TheLongTone's case for the photographer list (albeit unreferenced), which (veering towards WP:CRYSTAL / WP:ITSUSEFUL) could become more relevant when the digital images go online. AllyD (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ongoing story of digitization by volunteers, vs another collection being digitized by a commercial contractor, is interesting. Photo of volunteers, posing outside, which should be added to commons and included and another photo, of volunteers at work, both licensed CC BY-NA 4.0. {I dunno if those links will work for everyone; I am seeing them after coming in through the Wikipedia Library to get the "The Courtauld’s Witt and Conway Photographic Libraries: Two approaches to digitisation" 2020 article by Tom Bilson. Happy to share PDF of that to anyone who can't figure out how to get it themself. The collection has almost a million photos; btw it includes T.E. Lawrence's photos of Arabia. Story of Martin Conway ( (1856–1937), Lord Conway of Allington, first director general of Imperial War Museum) who began collecting it in 1885, partly as "one of his interests was of photography as a record of buildings that might suffer war damage" also interesting. Much substantial coverage, likely offline, must exist, I think. --Doncram (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Courtauld Institute of Art: It definitely exists and has attracted some coverage, but I haven't found enough to suggest that it can't be covered outside of the larger institution. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on to this, I recognize Doncram's point that this is a large, somewhat significant collection, but I simply think it better covered in the Courtauld Institute's article at the moment. If substantial coverage is dug up and content added so a stand-alone article is merited/necessary, I have no objection to re-splitting out. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:11, 20 September 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!} 07:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla Lattorff[edit]

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

Lacks notability (note that playing for a national team, especially one as minor as this, doesn't give "automatic" notability: indepth sources are needed, and are missing here completely: nothing in GNews, barely anything otherwise). Fram (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Europe. Fram (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON (she's 16). Page could easily be recreated if/when there is enough coverage to justify having a standalone page. Footnote is that she already exists as a redirect with her fullname Camilla Maria Katharina von Lattorff (OK I just moved the redirect to correct the misspelling of her family name, as the only redirects that existed were misspellings which are polluting Google results as well). Cielquiparle (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realized this when I created the page, but she's actually a member of the Liechtenstein Royal Family (full name: Camilla Maria Katharina von Lattorff) (https://twitter.com/highontherhine/status/1494428148733132818), which at least makes her slightly more notable than your average minnow international player, correct? Wouldn't it just make sense then to connect this page with her already existing re-direct page? Food for thought. DB1985 (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once there is enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG (or equivalent), then yes! Not finding anything though on google.li or google.at. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:16, 14 September 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. Going slightly against the grain of Liz's relist here, but I believe there is consensus that the article as presently defined isn't notable enough for a standalone article. If anyone wishes to propose mergers or renames they are welcome to do so, and I would be willing to provide a userspace copy to anyone who desires it. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nalchik War (1720–1721)[edit]

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

I've tried to find sources to verify that this war actually occurred and I'm frankly not able to. As such, even if this is not a hoax, I believe that this war has not been covered significantly by multiple independent reliable sources and therefore fails WP:NEVENT. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nom. Some of the claims seem to be simply implausible; the article states that Saadet II Giray (who appears to have died in the late 1500s), was involved in events that took place in the 1720s. I strongly suspect this to be a hoax. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious delete According to Russian wiki's [article on the history of Nalchik], Nalchik wasn't founded until 1724. I can't find any Russian sources that connect the actual Khan at the time, Saadet IV Giray, to Nalchik.OsFish (talk) 13:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Revising my reasons: the source cited in the article has been used elsewhere, so it's plausible that these events did take place (Nalchik refers to the river Nalchik). However, there is so far only the same single source behind all non-RS tertiary references to these events so fails notability per WP:NEVENT. I am also concerned there may be OR in the framing of several events as part of a single "war". Surely, a war of months-long duration would have other sources attesting to it.OsFish (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This source, which is RS, says "Après la signature du traité de Passarowitz, le khan mena une expédition punitive contre la Kabarda (1720-21)." This source: "In Spring 1720, Sa'adet-Giray Khan camped on the border of Greater Kabarda..." and "the Crimean Khanate ... together with Nogays, raided Circassian lands in 1710-1717 and 1720". I'm convinced it's not a hoax, so unless the cited article is bogus... I need more evidence that it is truly non-notable. Article should probably be re-titled. Srnec (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both those sources are footnotes. One does not tie any battle in 1721 to events in 1720 and basically exists to say that the source material it comments on is probably confused over the identity of two different leaders, which seems a little worrying. The other does not describe any specific events in the time frame. The problem is in taking these events as a coherent whole as an article. OsFish (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The title is tosh, but the 1721 invasion is listed in ru:Крымско-ногайские набеги на Кабарду. Keep and rename. Ghirla^-трёп- 11:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Most conflicts in Category:Wars involving the Circassians are also poorly documented and need reviewing. Ghirla^-трёп- 11:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks for tracking that down. I noticed that in that Russian page, the claim is also sourced to "Мальбахов Б. К. "Кабарда на этапах политической истории (середина XVI — первая четверть XIX века), Москва, «Поматур», 2002 г. ISBN 5-86208-106-2". There appears to be some disagreement about this as a source, with this edit, albeit from an IP, claiming it's not RS, although there's no talkpage discussion about it. So we may want to be cautious here. What's also notable is in that Russian page, there isn't a coherent "war" listed from 1720-1721. There it says a small-scale battle ("бой") near the River Nalchik takes place in 1721. So I am concerned that the time frame of the article may be WP:OR. I'm not sure that the battle in 1721 by itself is notable. I'd need to see more than one reliable source mention it (especially as I'm not sure how accurately the text of this article reflects the Mal'bakhov source). Or, the article title needs to be changed to reflect the general Crimean Tatar campaign.OsFish (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  It's hard to find non-partisan, reliable sources on the subject. Circassians tend to blow their anti-Turkic military campaigns out of proportion, while Balkars, Karachays and other Turkic authors tend to deny that Turkic incursions into North Caucasus ever took place. See Kanzhal War (1708) for one example. That said, Malbakhov seems to be a reasonably well respected historian. Ghirla^-трёп- 14:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  It would really help if @A poor son of Adam: could provide us with quotations from the Mal'bakhov source, particularly where these events are unified under a single title like the "Nalchik war". This may help to determine how widespread this historical framing of events is. As it stands, I'm inclined to delete on notability grounds, but am open to how notability is applied to poorly document historical events like this. My reading of WP:NEVENT is that it fails.OsFish (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couln't get the book, however, I find another page on Russian wiki quoting this Malbakhov source and talking about the 1721 and Nalchik: ru:Исламбек Мисостов. No war. We are talking about very local fight between military sub-subunits (отряды). --Suitskvarts (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Whether the title is right or not, there seems to have been a conflict. The problem is that this is all based on a single non-English source. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning towards deletion but would like additional evaluation of the new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- There is still only one reference listed in the article itself. I cleaned up the references in the article to make that more apparent. As for the other sources proposed by srnec, the posted excerpts don't seem like more than mention of raids, skirmishes, or small battles, which may have been worthy of comment about some larger scenario. But to me, they don't show evidence that this was anything that is in-and-of-itself notable enough. I wouldn't mind renaming it if a suitable title could be found and if the possible OR could be better documented. Radzy0 (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that started this is "this didn't happen and if it did it wasn't important". The sources I located in <5 minutes of searching online support in broad terms the content of the article, which is cited (it seems) to RS. It is three paragraphs long. What is the problem here? How will deleting this improve the encyclopaedia? Srnec (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: FInal relist. There seems to be a basic division on the reliability of the sources mentioned or in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nom. I don't think that the sources are sufficient to support the notion that there was some sort of notable event (i.e. a war) with WP:LASTING effects on a large geographical scope. There appears to lack a diversity of sources covering this as well, so I still think this fails WP:NEVENT. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:05, 20 September 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!} 22:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John H. Hughes (academic)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Search does not bring up notable awards or accomplishments. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An academic with a long and varied career (the vita at the first link is quite comprehensive) but I don't see anything there that would satisfy NPROF or GNG criteria. Unless featuring in regional Who's Whos is now a factor, which I doubt? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nithra Apps[edit]

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

Non notable company. Many sources cited in the article don't actually mention it. (t · c) buidhe 05:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and India. (t · c) buidhe 05:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know what I can do to make my article better. Mpromax (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability can't be fixed by any amount of editing, so I'd recommend deleting the article. (t · c) buidhe 06:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of discussion is Nithra Apps, a start-up company about which I plan to write an article.

Please advise what area I could improve. Mpromax (talk) 06:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe,

Hello, I've just modified and revised my article. I hope my changes make the information more balanced for you. Mpromax (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was unable to find any SIGCOV. Some database sources (e.g., [66]), but nothing that would establish notability. House Blaster^talk 16:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the SIGCOV sourceMpromax (talk) 10:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mpromax, SIGCOV is a good thing. Articles need SIGCOV to be included in the encyclopedia. House Blaster^talk 14:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I'm not sure they really get what the purpose of an AfD is? See our interactions on my talk page. They seem to think that the article meets NCORP, but other than just saying that they haven't really addressed anyone's concerns really? Sources not even mentioning the subject concerns me. They also didn't confirm nor deny when I asked them if it was possible they were a paid editor... I'm not incredibly familiar with what UPE looks like, but I would think the average person would say something along the lines of "no, I'm not being paid for my edits"? Clovermoss (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- They also--what I can only describe as--sneakily removed the article from the AfD category, which is not something a new user would know how to do, nor would have any reason to do. — HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 10:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- And they did it again. — HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 12:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: advertising. . . Mean as custard (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mean as custard,

The article was edited and removed the promotional advertising content Mpromax (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've just modified and revised my article. I hope my changes make the information more balanced for you. Mpromax (talk) 11:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a run-of-the-mill startup advertising and COI (probably UPE). Clearly the author is only here to promote the company and not to build the rest of the encyclopedia. Despite requests to disclose COI, they have not, but it's obvious they are involved and approaching this as PR. Regardless of sources in the article, it would have to be completely rewritten, so there is no point in making it a draft either. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 12:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've just modified and revised my article. I hope my changes make the information more balanced for youMpromax (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above: "Lack of notability can't be fixed by any amount of editing". None of the sources pass the WP:GNG requirements. Without independent reliable in-depth sources, the article can never be anything other than promotional. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 12:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've just modified and revised my article. I hope my changes make the information more balanced for youMpromax (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've just modified and revised my article. I hope my changes make the information more balanced for you and I added some reliable independent sourcesMpromax (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The new sources are a private inaccessible workspace, newspaper from 1915, a copy of app store listing, basically an ad for an app, and an app store link. Nothing even close to WP:GNG sources. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 21:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've just modified and revised my article. I hope my changes make the information more balanced for you and I added some reliable independent sources Mpromax (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage found in any of the sources. 0xDeadbeef 11:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and lacks sigcov.Hey man im josh (talk) 15:46, 19 September 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 14:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nayakkar Chenai[edit]

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

One sentence and two links can't ever justify a Wikipedia article. WP:GEOLAND says places in general are notable. I doubt this would've applied. Virtually all mentions outside Wikipedia is copied text. As an aside, Sorry if I did something wrong here, it's my first time doing this. Jenkowelten (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: You did nothing wrong at all by following the process. Good job. I agree that this page should be deleted. The village simply isn't notable. Now let's see what others think. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was created improperly and never transcluded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete The only real clue to this is the map link which is vague but which does seem to point to a temple of the same name, which doesn't seme to lie in a significant settlement of its own. Mangoe (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Betta Home Living[edit]

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

Non-notable furniture retailer. The only source that could potentially be used on the article is the Sydney Morning Herald source; all the rest are under role bylines or outright unattributed. A search turns up nothing useful sourcing-wise (string:"betta home living"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 03:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's already one SMH source in the article. Here's another long one[67]. There's also coverage there under the previous name, "Beta Electrical"[68], but most of which is listed below as it also ran in The Age. There's coverage in Appliance Retailer, e.g. [69][70][71], although of varying quality. The company is covered in a number of earlier stories in The Age[72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82]. Presumably more coverage is available in newspapers from before digitization.Jahaza (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The main concern I have with these articles is that the byline was not kept. A lack of a byline tends to be a warning sign to me. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 04:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald are reliable sources regardless of whether the articles are showing a byline on the web archive or indeed, even if they ran in the paper without a byline. See this archive discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.--Jahaza (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're reliable outlets. There is a difference between a reliable outlet and a reliable source (for example, The New York Times is a reliable outlet; an op-ed they publish is not a reliable source). And the reason an absent (or role) byline is suspicious to me is because there are many publications, reliable and otherwise, that publish churnalism under such (lack of) bylines. That being said, looking at these articles, these look like run-of-the-mill business news for the most part. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 08:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jahaza. The SMH articles clearly show notability, and spurious claims about a lack of a byline don't demonstrate otherwise. Deus et lex (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jahaza's list of sources. Waddles 🗩 🖉 21:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Music Box (software)[edit]

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

Insufficient significant coverage located on a search using "music box" + Topologika in order to reduce noise. Aside from the current source (an industry publication for teachers), there was one paragraph in an article from The Independent, and after that, trivial mentions in articles about music software in general. I searched using Google, Newspapers.com, TWL, and JSTOR, so overall I think I've been fairly thorough here. It's not enough to meet WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Education, and Software. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Keep Full page review here[83] in Child Education (also brief mention in same journal w/giveaway when version 2 came out, but may not be editorially independent[84]), additional TES mention here[85], besides the one already cited in the article[86], included in a group review in British Journal of Music Education[87] which I can't access, another mention in The Independent many years later[88]. Archives of substantial reviews in RISC User[89] and Archimedes World[90]. Jahaza (talk) 05:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there isn't enough to warrant a full article, perhaps it can be on a list of Acorn software? ScienceFlyer (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have included a reference on Music Box in the article on Topologika. Please consider mentioning Music Box in the article on Acornsoft. Meanwhile, I will remove the orphan tag. On the basis of the references provided by Jahaza, I would keep the Music Box article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Jahaza. Andre🚐 18:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems like the sources Jahaza has provided above shows basic notability through WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. I wish I could see what the British Journal of Music Education ref actually says, but the others are more than sufficient. - Aoidh (talk) 20:38, 18 September 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. Clear consensus to delete but unsure if this is a hoax. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek expanded universe[edit]

All prior XfDs for this page: Articles for deletion/Star Trek Expanded Universe

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

I stumbled on this article during a voice call at WP:Discord. I'm pretty sure it's a hoax article.
Per Geni, the Person who created this article later got blocked for fabricating sources (See AN/I thread). There is no evidence of this term being used before October 2004. On the talk page, Brian Kendig mentioned it isn't a term used in the fandom (which a YouTuber friend of mine confirmed for me fwiw). OberRanks claimed D.C. Fontana used the term in the 1960s to describe Leonard McCoy's backstory, but that is a claim I find doubtful given the user's history of fabricating sources.
If the article is referring to licensed non-canon Star Trek media, then we have Star Trek spin-off fiction. If it's for a list of notable fan works, then we have Star Trek fan productions.
Credit to Sideswipe9th for helping figure out it was a hoax. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was created at 16:41, 27 October 2004. If this is deleted as a hoax, it would surpass The Heat Is On as the longest-lived hoax in history. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I can tell, this is a hoax article. The mention of D.C Fantana using it in the 1960s seems factitious and is unverifiable. Any contemporary usage of the term seems intrinsically linked to the former Star Wars Expanded Universe (now known as Legends), usually in the form of parallels between how the two franchises handled third party licensed (and unlicensed) published materials. The article itself has been tagged with ((no footnotes)) since September 2015 and no sources have thus far been forthcoming. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or, to quote my good friend Senator Vreenak "It's a FAAAAAAAAKKKKKKEEEEEEEEE!" Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th Fun question: is this a WP:HOAX? Does it deserve a spot at WP:List of hoaxes? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Retinalsummer (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article discusses nothing more than the difference between canon and non-canon. The owners of the Star Wars license (Disney) declared much non-canon Star Wars material to be incompatible with the direction they wanted to develop further stories, and that resulted in the Star Wars expanded universe which is rich in detail but conflicts with recent Star Wars movies and television series. Star Trek has not (yet) had a schism like this (even alternate Star Trek universes have been explored in canon). - Brian Kendig (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be a hoax, or egregious original research plus wishful thinking, which amounts to the same thing. I see no evidence whatsoever that this is a viable topic; even if the demonstrably false pieces are removed, there's several extant articles that would cover all its material. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Delete and) recreate as a disambiguation page: This article may have false facts, but I think the topic is valid: the term is used in a number of academic and non-academic sources. The term seems to be used in at least two meanings, though. The first is just what the introduction to our article here says. Just compare To Boldly Go and use "expanded universe" as search term. The second is fan stories for Star Trek, as exemplified by STAR TREK Expanded Universe Wiki (compare this and other sources). So basically Star Trek spin-off fiction and Star Trek fan productions, just as the nomination says. That's why I think this should be a disambiguation page to point the interested reader in the right direction about this actually existing term. Daranios (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Non of the academic and non-academic mentions pre-date the creation of the article, which seems to me to be a clear case of citogenesis. It is only an "actually existing term" because an unscrupulous and now blocked editor made it up. Retinalsummer (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Retinalsummer: "Non of the academic and non-academic mentions pre-date the creation of the article" seems to be true enough, however that does not make it "a clear case of citogenesis". E.g. this academic source goes back to the definition of extended universe rather than our Wikipedia article here, as well as drawing the parallel to the Star Wars Expanded Universe, and both those terms have been used before 2004. Most academic sources refer for the name to said STAR TREK Expanded Universe Wiki. This wiki seems to be younger than 2004, so it is possible that they have taken their name from the Wikipedia article. But that does not seem very likely to me in comparison the concept of expanded universe simply being applied to their fandom. Even if we were to assume that the name originated from our article here, it is out there and is used now. Why should this (hypothetical) unwanted Wikipedia-neologism-origin hinder us from documenting it now? Lastly, as it is not a false fact that is promulgated, but rather a new name for a concept, it seems to me that WP:Neologism would apply rather than WP:CITOGENESIS. (Aside from the one sentence, "The term was first used...", which seems likely a hoax, but is not take up by other sources, so no citogenesis there.) Curiously, I did not so far see any guidance for a case of a term created by Wikipedia in violation of WP:OR which became a real thing afterwards. Daranios (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Why should this (hypothetical) unwanted Wikipedia-neologism-origin hinder us from documenting it now?" I personally think this sort of thing makes Wikipedia look unreliable. I can't imagine continuing to use the term "Jewel Voice Broadcast" after it was shown to have originated on Wikipedia as a sloppy translation, for example. Some lazy academics also copied that term from Wikipedia, but it doesn't mean Wikipedia or more rigorous academics should use it. Retinalsummer (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Retinalsummer: Allright, then we should have some evidence or solid indication that indeed "Some lazy academics" "copied that term from Wikipedia" in this case, before acting on it. Said source has a valid explanation for getting to that term independent of Wikipedia, and as long as there is no indication that the authors are not among the "more rigorous academics", we should not place a hunch from our side above a secondary source. For the second use of the term, the work of the academic sources seems to be mainly in analyzing STAR TREK Expanded Universe Wiki. We should not ignore such analysis just because the name of that wiki may or may not have been taken from an erroneous Wikipedia article. Daranios (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, WP:TNT. IF sources exist to rescue this, I doubt they'd support much of the existing content anyway, so the best I can say is that I am not opposed to seeing this recreated, with sources, later. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - giving the creator the benefit of the doubt, I think this might be Original Research rather than a hoax, but it still does not belong on Wikipedia. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 15:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the article was an interesting read, it's totally original research and doesn't belong here.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Heeney[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion, as there is not a single reference, and comedian does not appear notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnookerLoopyOneFourSeven (talk • contribs) 23:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find his social media links, but nothing for GNG. He tweeted about another comedian dying and that's about the extent of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Entertainment. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Durgham Maraee[edit]

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

Hello all.

The character is an Arab and Palestinian and has no article on the Arabic Wikipedia, and the article on the Arabic Wikipedia has been subjected to rapid deletion.
The character does not meet the criteria for notability and fame in Wikipedia.
There is not enough coverage, and there are no references.
References are disabled and there are references that contain advertisements, and their purpose is not to introduce the character.
The article is too short, and does not achieve sufficient quality. --Osps7 (talk) 08:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was created improperly and never transcluded to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet criteria Nzs9 (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 13 September 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 University of Perpetual Help System. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 01:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

University of Perpetual Help System JONELTA – Isabela Campus[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Zero hits on Google News and Google Books. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 01:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm confirming nom's Google Searches. Alternatively, Redirect to University of Perpetual Help System. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with a redirect to University of Perpetual Help System, or even a merge of all the JONELTA Foundation campuses into a single University of Perpetual Help System JONELTA article (a different title may be appropriate, I'm unfamiliar with Filipino university structure). This does seem to be a real university, but this specific campus of the JONELTA university might not need its own page. — Gmarmstrong (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Perpetual Help System as WP:NOTINHERITED. Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allen, Indiana[edit]

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

A random spot that doesn't appear on the topos until, yes, the 2013 edition, indicating that it was probably copied there from GNIS. Other than that, I got nothing. Mangoe (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Somewhat difficult to search for a common name in a county of the same name, but there doesn't appear to have been a notable community here. –dlthewave ☎ 02:59, 15 September 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Kumar (British filmmaker)[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. Why is an article needed when there are no sources that could be used to make content. The only article of use is this. That sources talks about Ajay (his brother) and Vijay but more sources are needed on Vijay. The article was written by this user and have no idea where they got access to sources 1, 6 and 7, but based on the current article almost all of it (if not all of it) is original research that does not explain why he is notable. Could not fins any suitable wikilinks that can be sourced. DareshMohan (talk) 01:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, India, Delhi, and United Kingdom. Gilded Snail (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I see a consensus for deletion but not a consensus for salting or changing this page into a redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Formula One World Championship[edit]

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

This has been created then BLARed three times. I disagree with the BLAR as there is no suitable target, certainly Formula One makes no mention of 2024 except for mention of a tv rights deal. As for the article, it consists entirely of speculation based on existing long-term contracts, and no sources I can find discuss the season itself, but only speculation or articles about aspirations etc (eg [91] which may belong on team/biography articles but are not enough to warrant an article about this season). The season is simply too far away to support an article (noting that 2023 Formula One World Championship only left draftspace permanently in August). So I think deletion or draftification is suitable here (and not redirection). A7V2 (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. A7V2 (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Evidently no reason for creation. Also support SALTing the article until mid-2023. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT until some time next year - Simply WP:TOOSOON for an article on a subject about which far too little information exists for it to meet the WP:GNG. If for some unexpected reason the subject becomes notable earlier than might be expected then a request can be made to the admins to unsalt the page. All this article would be likely to do for the next few months is attract speculative edits or information better suited for other articles (ie. contract information can go on driver biographies). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Neutral on whether this should redirect to Formula One#Future. Since this season falls in the middle of a planned regulation cycle there is particularly little to say about it until closer to the time, but the redirect isn't inherently unhelpful. 2026 Formula One World Championship would make more sense as a protected redirect to Formula One#Future. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BLAR to Formula One#Future and Fully Protect the redirect until mid-2023. 2024 is not all that far off, and it seems reasonable to believe that people will search for information on the 2024 season. In my view it is more helpful to redirect readers to useful information about the future plans of Formula One, presumably why they would search for such a topic, than to entirely delete the redirect. Additionally, Draftify the existing article content (this should also be done if the page is deleted and SALTed as proposed by User:HumanBodyPiloter5). ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 03:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have Redirected this page once, you lot keep bringing it back, simply put, it needs to go. NASCAR has a policy where they don't do anything for the next years page until about August of the year current, so for example they wouldn't allow a 2023 Page until August because most deals and the calendar is released from August onwards. F1 is a global sport, much bigger than NASCAR, and frankly if we can't even get this right, and allow pages two years early, then we are really ruining ourselves. Think about what I've just said, and maybe lets implement a system for pages where they can only be applied in August of the current year, otherwise, we just get too many pages to manage, and there's no explicit reason for them to be there ConcordeAAIB (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, ConcordeAAIB, I am unsure who your statement is intended to be addressing. I don't disagree with your broader reasoning, I just find the phrasing somewhat confusing. The only contributor to this discussion who has "brought the page back" from being a redirect is the user who nominated the page for discussion. Am I missing something? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Who are you referring to? And why do we need to think about what you've just said when we're all in agreement? Indeed, three of us have supported SALTing. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I restored the article not because I think that it is an article which should be kept (as should be clear from me nominating it for deletion) but because I disagree with the BLAR(s) since I don't think it is a suitable redirect (and probably it should never have been BLARed even a second time but taken to AFD when it was restored). WP:BLAR suggests AFD is the place to sort these matters out. I firmly oppose the above suggested redirect target of Formula One#Future as there is no mention of the 2024 season in that section. I have no particular opinion on whether to salt. It is probably unnecessary since the article has never been recreated out of process: anyone is free to revert a BLAR, and a draftify result here makes it much clearer that this shouldn't be recreated, but maybe that's just wishful thinking. A7V2 (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I had completely missed that you had restored the article from a redirect just to nominate it at AfD. That to me seems confusing and quite ridiculous. Why would you have not just left it BLARed and listed it at WP:RfD instead? Reverting the redirect back to an article just to nominate it for AfD makes no sense, and in this case has only ended up distracting discussion participants with answering the question of "should the article exist" (upon which it seems the answer is no, otherwise it would not have been previously BLARed) when the question the discussion ought to have been focusing on was "should this redirect to anywhere" upon which there is some clear division, but not a clear consensus (yet) since that's not what we were asked. Maybe I'm missing something about some obscure technicality in the processes, but if you don't think an article should exist, why would you put it back just to point out how it shouldn't exist? That seems rather counterintuitive and silly. Though at this point that toothpaste is out of the tube in this particular case, so whatever.

Maybe I'm totally off the mark with this comment and reverting a BLAR to start an AfD is a completely normal thing to do, in which case my opinion on it can be disregarded and I'd much appreciate being educated. Ignore this everyone, I'm a dumbass. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 10:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BLAR: If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thank you. Striking this comment. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 10:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Formula One#Future. This is WP:TOOSOON to create a page considering the 2023 season has not even started yet and the 2022 season is still in progress. Due to persistent edit-warring, I would also support page protection of this redirect until 1 July 2023 (and no later than that date). Frank Anchor 18:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Way WP:TOOSOON, this is a series of contracts. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDATABASE apply here, as listing these contracts is unencylopedic in nature, until we get closer to this contracts actually being in force. I also oppose a redirect (perhaps even strongly oppose) as Formula One#Future doesn't discuss this season in any way, shape or form. SSSB (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no point in keeping the article now.--Island92 (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think we can all agree that the page should be deleted. However, there are two issues to further discuss here. First, I felt that the 2023 page was created too late, and should've been created earlier. Second, those suggesting a redirect to Formula One#Future, that section, firstly contains details that's already happened, and second should be updated to discuss long term driver contracts, the calendar expansion etc. etc. Phoenix84621 (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That being the case, I strongly support adding that missing information, and maintain my previous opinion that the page should be redirected to Formula One#Future and fully protected for a limited time to prevent further page re-creation and edit warring. ostensibly singular userpage (inquire within) 21:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the addition of contracts to Formula One#Future. The scope of this section is to outline the planned evolution of the series, and it would constitute a database (which Wikipedia is not) to list contracts there simply because the relevant season article does not exist. SSSB (talk) 10:51, 19 September 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. But clearly this article needs some immediate improvement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abhilashi University[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and India. MickeyMouse143 (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Himachal Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As the page creator, I wont !vote higher than a weak keep, but I have concerns with the deletion process. The nom has made 12 deletion nominations in 10 minutes, so I doubt they have done a very through WP:BEFORE. This being an independently accredited degree-awarding institution, the community's experience, as summarized by WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, shows that most such institutes have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online. I don't speak the language, but an online news search does show some promise, and local print newspapers might have more. Also, alternatives to deletion were certainly not considered. --Muhandes (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Muhandes (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. --Muhandes (talk) 12:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. State-recognised universities are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some measure of notability exists for universities. Lightburst (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability is there but it is horribly sourced. Gusfriend (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simle[edit]

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

The page title is likely a misspelling of Simple. A WP:BEFORE search mostly returns results unrelated to the village. I cannot find evidence that this article meets WP:NPLACE. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 00:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 00:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A placename with confirmed addresses within it and +5k people shouldn't be deleted, and a simple hatnote takes care of the spelling issue with "simple", "smile", or "simile". Nate • (chatter) 00:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Populated places are not inherently notable. I did not find significant coverage of the village in reliable sources. All search results are about something else named "Simle". I do not understand your argument at all. Even if the village is notable, it is clearly not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 01:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your argument that 'people misspell a word and come here' is fixed with a simple WP:HATNOTE and there's no cause to delete this article otherwise. The only other existing 'Simle' topic is a middle school in Bismarck, North Dakota, which is also covered with a 'see Bismarck Public Schools' hatnote (though I don't feel we even need it). Nate • (chatter) 03:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google News search for "simle" "nepal" shows plenty of local news for the area. Also, the first point in WP:NPLACE justifies an article even by itself. — Gmarmstrong (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet WP:NPLACE. Retinalsummer (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This needs expert examination. There may be a place called Simle on the map, but since I can't read the language, I can't verify that. However, according to the article on village development committees, they no longer exist. So is this something that used to exist and doesn't any more, or should it be described as something different? Mangoe (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if they no longer exist the N for the community doesn't expire so there's likely a different definition we can put it under. Nate • (chatter) 22:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added details about what it's now part of to the article; the Phedap Rural Municipality. Nate • (chatter) 23:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Populated & legally recognized place, so meets WP:NPLACE. It is the 'Village Development Committee' that was merged to form a 'rural municipality', the village exists. ~ Yeti Dai (talk)
Keep it seems to be a village and former division with census data so is probably inherently notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:09, 14 September 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.